Untitled Document

Precocious young learners? They’ll get on in spite of me.

Margaret Sutherland

University of Glasgow
Faculty of Education
Scottish Network for Able Pupils
St Andrew’s Building
11 Eldon St
Glasgow
G3 6NH
M.Sutherland@educ.gla.ac.uk
www.ablepupils.com

Developmental milestones are often related to age therefore it is expected, for example, that a child will be able to sit unaided by six months. Similar milestones have been incorporated into curricular frameworks such as 5-14 National Guidelines (SOED, 1991) in Scotland. Failure to reach these milestones by an expected age may suggest developmental delays and therefore ‘atypical’ development and it is often at this point that a child is assessed to determine whether special strategies are required.

Another aspect of ‘atypical’ development is the precocious development of young children. These children, sometimes referred to as ‘tall poppies’, often achieve the aforementioned milestones far earlier than their peers.

Teachers often find themselves with classes comprising children who display a range of needs and by their own admission; teachers often spend time with those who are struggling in the assumption that those who are ‘able’ will progress anyway. It has been suggested that this is not the case and that these children regularly underachieve .

This paper will explore the idea of ‘atypical’ development in precocious young children and consider how teachers can support and challenge them in an inclusive setting.

Young children’s development has been the source of much debate. Indeed the structures and organisation we see in current day early years education has been heavily influenced by such deliberations. Locke in the seventeenth century proffered the view that the child was an empty vessel – a tabula rasa-, Rousseau offered us the concept of the innocent child in need of protection. More recently Piaget’s view of the child who would move through preordained levels of learning depending on biological make up, alongside Vygotsky and Bruner’s notion of the young child as a social creature, have all impacted heavily on our notion of what constitutes early years education and development.

Certainly the influence of Piaget and the linear approach to learning he advocated is in evidence in much of the literature surrounding the development of young children. The literature centres on the typical developmental milestones for children. Customarily these milestones are determined by age. Predictably this results in the generation of lists of skills and abilities that children will have acquired by a certain age. Crawling, walking, saying single words, joining words together to make sentences and carrying out instructions are all examples of predictable achievements young children will be expected to accomplish. These ‘lists’ are used by a variety of individuals including parents, health care workers, doctors, psychologists and educators to gauge children’s development. When a child fails to reach the predicted milestone there can be great concern among carers and care givers.

From the educators perspective checking a child’s abilities against a perceived ‘norm’ allows them to undertake, all be it perhaps intermittent, summative assessment which will in turn feed in to the attainment levels expected by national guidelines. Similar milestones have been incorporated into curricular frameworks such as 5-14 National Guidelines (SOED, 1991) in Scotland. Children are expected to achieve these by a certain stage in their school career. This is translated into the National Testing arena in operation within Scotland where children are, for example, expected to pass Level A by the end of Primary 3. Again, failure to reach these milestones by an expected age may suggest developmental delays and therefore ‘atypical’ development and it is often at this point that a child is assessed to determine whether special strategies are required resulting in a special curriculum, class or programme being created. Typically, steps are taken to ‘remedy’ the difficulties the child is presenting with and thus it would appear that generated lists of ‘normally’ achieved developmental milestones lead to a deficit approach towards the child. In other words the focus is on the child, the difficulty and the ‘cure’. It would seem to endorse the work of Poplin (1988) who referred to a reductionist paradigm where the problem is seen to reside within the child and consequently that the child has to be ‘fixed’. Accordingly children are ‘treated’ for their difficulty and as mentioned this is usually in the form of some special curriculum, class or programme.

Thus far, we have considered the child who fails to meet the developmental milestones. What of the child who reaches them well in advance of their age? They too are “atypical” in development.

One of the difficulties in discussing ‘atypical’ development is that, by its very nature, there is an assumption that there is ‘typical’ development. Again we find ourselves back at this idea of some linear approach to learning suggesting there are stages we will pass through, and indeed have to pass through, before we are ready for the subsequent stages. It has long been accepted that there were ‘critical periods’ for brain development. However much of what we know about the process of learning would lead us to challenge this hypothesis. It was this assumption led people, and educators among them, to believe that if a ‘critical period’ in learning was missed then the child would be ‘in deficit’. However recent research in neurosciences would refute this idea. Hall (2005) undertook a review of the contribution of brain science to education. He suggests that neuroscience is withdrawing from the notion of ‘critical periods’ and instead suggesting there may be in fact ‘sensitive periods’ in brain development. In other words there are times when the brain is more receptive to particular types of input and ready to meet such demand (Hall, 2005, page 16). However he argues that this means all is not lost if these ‘sensitive periods’ are missed. It is simply that when returning to learn something at a later date it is perhaps different brain mechanisms that are used (Hall, 2005, page 16). He goes on to discuss the distinction that has been made by neuroscientists in relation to learning. One type of learning is dependent on our evolutionary development. The brain adapts according to the stimuli it expects and receives. These stimuli come from our surroundings. It is this, neuroscience would suggest, that allows the brain to fine tune itself and it may be subject to ‘sensitive periods’ when the brain is particularly ready to respond to these stimuli, which are ever present in the environment (Hall, 2005, page16). The other type of learning referred to in this study is ‘experience dependent learning’. This is learning which is determined not by a need to learn but by the culture in which we find ourselves. The example given in the study is that of reading. Learning to read is culturally determined, ‘experience dependent’, learning, which will not happen by itself (Hall, 2004, page 16). The documentation suggests it demands training and results from cultural and social necessity (Hall, 2005, page 16).

However, a small scale study undertaken by Scottish Network for Able Pupils (SNAP) into young precocious learners discovered that of the four children surveyed all of them began reading prior that to starting formal school. Parents of one of the nursery aged children reported that their child knew all the letters of the alphabet and numbers 1-10 at the age of 18 months (Sutherland, 2003, page 222). The other was reported as role playing characters from books and films and was, at the age of 4, …reading CS Lewis Narnia books and Roald Dahl’s Matilda (Sutherland, 2003, page 222). These occurrences are not uncommon among young precocious children (Gross, 2004). Neither of the sets of parents in the SNAP study reported teaching their child to read or of expecting or demanding that they read prior to formal schooling. Could it be that for these children they had already reached the stage of identifying reading as a cultural and social necessity (Hall, 2005, page 16)? If this is the case, does it give credence to the argument that there is such a phenomenon as ‘atypical’ development? Certainly current brain research acknowledges there is divergence among individual brains (Hall, 2005) although this was particularly in relation to gender, nonetheless it may also be the case that there are differences within gender groups leading some to present with ‘atypical’ development. Interestingly the concluding section of this report does not consider precocious development and yet there are clearly implications for this from the studies incorporated in the report. The emphasis is on remediation and deficit (Hall, 2005). There is a casual glance towards infant hot housing (Hall, 2005, page 21) which is recognised as not being helpful but the focus is on normal human infant development (Hall, 2005, page 21).

If we accept the idea of ‘sensitive periods’ then it would certainly seem to indicate that young precocious learners will require stimulation during these times and that indeed these periods may occur at different times for different children. Perhaps when this is combined with initial curiosity on the part of the child, advanced development, ‘atypical development’, occurs.

If we accept that there are children who have, for whatever reasons, reached these predetermined milestones earlier than expected then we have to consider how, as educators, we cater for their needs in the classroom. Whether we decide to call them ‘atypical’ or not would appear to be irrelevant, what matters is acknowledging their abilities, wherever they may lie, and challenging them (Sutherland, 2005).

In Scotland the education of precocious young learners has been placed firmly within an inclusive context. The Education of Able Pupils P6-S2 (SOED, 1993) adopted a broad definition of ability and identified an inclusive approach as one in which an appropriately challenging educational experience could be offered to all. A plethora of documentation (SOED, 1994; SOEID, 1999; SE, 2001; SEED, 2002; SEED, 2003) has emanated from the Scottish Executive Education Department endorsing this inclusive approach to education. Legislation has set in place an inclusive framework (2000; 2004). The scene would seem to be set for addressing the needs of precocious young learners. The implementation of this legislative and policy framework however is not so clear-cut. Indeed reality can take time to draw alongside rhetoric.

Teachers often find themselves with classes comprising children who display a range of needs and by their own admission; teachers often spend more time with those who are struggling. There is an assumption that those who are ‘able’ will progress anyway (Smith and Sutherland, 2003). McMichael (1998) suggests that this is not the case and that these children have been shown frequently to underachieve and to find their school years frustrating and even debilitating (McMichael, 1998, page1). Catering for precocious young learners can challenge the very core of a teacher’s implicit belief system (Dweck, 1999). It is these beliefs that shape the curriculum on offer, the mediation of that curriculum and indeed whether we offer young precocious learners an opportunity to access an appropriate curriculum in the first place. Raths (2001), Kennedy (1997), and Gibson (1984) suggest that beliefs are formed through interactions and experiences. Consequently this perhaps suggests they can be challenged and even changed by providing alternative interactions and experiences which encourage teachers …to think explicitly about their folk psychological assumptions, in order to bring them out of the shadows of tacit knowledge (Bruner, 1996, page 47). Accordingly it would seem that if teachers want to challenge young precocious learners then they first of all have to consider their implicit beliefs in relation to intelligence. Is it single, or multi-dimensional?

Viewing intelligence as a single dimension has of course been challenged (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985). However the use of phrases such as you can try as hard as you like, but if the child hasn’t got it in him, there’s nothing you can do (Watters, 2002, page 6) by teachers would give credence to the view that intelligence is a single entity that resides within the child and about which you, as the educator, can do very little. Conversely intelligence when viewed as multi-dimensional would seem to compliment much of the work carried out in the early years setting where the needs of the whole child are considered and where learning is predominantly child-centred and child led. These two distinct views of intelligence are important when we begin to think about the way in which we work with young children. These beliefs about intelligence are closely linked to what Dweck calls ‘goal achievement’ (Dweck, 1999) She asserts that a fixed view of intelligence will be concerned with performance goals. This in turn will mean that the educator is interested in what the child can produce. In contrast an incremental view of intelligence will be concerned with becoming smarter and so learning goals will be of greater significance. Before considering any curricular framework for supporting the education of young precocious learners it would appear that educators have to examine their own belief systems, firstly in relation to intelligence and secondly in relation to the folk assumption that precocious young learners will get on in spite of them.

When these two attitudes coincide with each other then consideration of the curriculum on offer becomes more about challenge and possibilities rather than assessing what a child can already do. The educator will examine the opportunities offered to precocious young children. These opportunities will not simply consist of ‘more of the same’ but will be developed to take account of the child’s intellectual, physical, emotional, social and cultural needs (Porter, 2005, page 148) and lead on to further challenge and development. One of the difficulties for the educator when planning an effective curriculum is that often curriculum planning guidelines assume that young precocious learners are a homogeneous group when in fact they are as assorted as any other group of individuals (Freeman, 1998). This has to be bourn in mind and adds to the already exigent task of the early years educator.

Regardless of the legislative framework, teacher attitudes and careful curriculum planning that exists in Scotland there are tensions within the Scottish education system that seem to mitigate against this inclusive approach to education (Smith, 2003). Smith indicates that at the same time as inclusive policies and reports are being developed schools are also being hit with a ‘raising attainment’ agenda that consists of target setting, an increasingly bureaucratic and burdensome assessment system, an overcrowded curriculum and national testing (Smith, 2003, page 203). Erstwhile attempts to construct an inclusive education system may falter due to two apparently divergent agendas coming into play. Moreover what is concerning is that the little evidence that exists in relation to inclusion (Dyson et al, 2000) would seem to suggest that these two agendas are not in fact mutually exclusive. Indeed it is in embracing an inclusive approach that we might start to address the needs of young precocious learners.

Conclusion

Precocious young learners are evident in our education system and will meet learning outcomes much sooner than their peers. It would seem from current brain research that these young children may reach ‘sensitive periods’ in advance of their peers and thus they assimilate knowledge and the cultural applications of that knowledge ahead of peers. Accordingly they learn to read, learn to count, learn all manner of activities apparently well ahead of their chronological age and their peers. If this is the case then these children arrive in our educational settings ready to be challenged at a higher level than the majority of children. It is therefore the educators’ job to be aware that these children exist and to actively seek them out in order that they receive an appropriate and challenging educational experience. An educators’ belief about intelligence will influence how they approach this task.

The inclusive approach adopted by Scotland and supported by a raft of documentation and legislation would seem to support an inclusive approach to the education of precocious young children. The Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc (2000) Act states education should be directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child to their fullest potential (2000, Section 2). This allows for recognition of the tall poppies (Gross, 1993) that are to be found in our education system. Recognising that such children exist and acknowledging that their abilities may be wide and varied means educators can begin to look at how they challenge young precocious learners. Viewing these children and their abilities as something to be celebrated and considering them to have an important contribution to make to the life of the school will in turn invigorate educators and pupils alike. The systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for promoting participation by all students suggested that there are general principles of school organisation and classroom practice which should be followed: notably, the removal of structural barriers between different groups of students and staff, the dismantling of separate programmes, services and specialisms and the development of pedagogical approaches (such as constructivist approaches) which enable students to learn together rather than separately (Dyson et al, 2002). This would seem to be, in essence, the kind of approach that would serve our precious young children well.

Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Dweck, C. (1999) Self Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development USA: Philadelphia Psychology Press

Dyson A, Howes A, Roberts B, (2002). A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for promoting participation by all students (EPPI-Centre

Freeman, J. (1998) Educating the very able: Current International Research London: HMSO

Gross, M.U.M. (2004) (2 nd ed) Exceptionally Gifted Children London: Routledge

Hall, J. (2005) Neuroscience and Education: A review of the contribution of brain science to teaching and learning Glasgow: SCRE

Poplin, M. (1988) The Reductionist Fallacy in Learning Disabilities: Replicating the Past by Reducing the Present inJournal of Learning Disabilities, 21 (7): 389-429

Porter, L. (2005) (2 nd ed) Gifted Young Children: a guide of teachers and parents England: Open University Press

Raths, J. (2001) Teachers’ Beliefs and Teaching Beliefs. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Spring 2001 V3, N 1

Scottish Executive, (2001) Social Justice: A Scotland where everyone matters. Social Justice Annual Report Edinburgh: HMSO

Scottish Executive Education Department (2002) The National Priorities in School Education: A Framework for Improvement Edinburgh: HMSO

Scottish Office Education Department (1993) The Education of Able Pupils P6-S2

Scottish Office Education Department (1994) Effective Provision for Special Educational Needs Edinburgh: HMSO

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (1999) The Child at the Centre Edinburgh: HMSO

Smith, C. M. M. and Sutherland, M. J. (2003) Setting or mixed ability? Teachers’views of the organisation of pupils for learning. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. V3, N3, pp141 – 146

Smith, C.M.M. (2003) Can Inclusion Work for More Able Learners? in Gifted Education International Vol 18 No 2 pp201-208

Sternberg, R. J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human IntelligenceCambridge University Press: New York

Sutherland, M. (2003) Young Able Children: Parents’ Perspectives inGifted Education International Vol 18 No 2 pp218-226

Sutherland, M. (2005) Gifted and Talented in the Early Years London: Paul Chapman Publishing

Watters, C. (2002) Teachers’ Views of Ability unpublished course work, Glasgow: University of Glasgow