My first visit to a Montessori preschool took place many years ago when I wanted to see whether it was right for my own child, and initially it was the quiet in the preschool that struck me – you would not guess there were many children present. Everything was neat and tidy, and children were working at their own pace alongside each other. One child was pouring water into a small glass carefully from a little glass jug. Another was working quietly on a puzzle. There were very interesting wooden puzzles and mathematical blocks around, and I recall seeing a globe. There was an easel, but hardly any artwork to be seen, and the Directress (a Montessori term for the person running the preschool, who is most often NOT a university trained early childhood teacher, but has had Montessori training) seemed rather severe and serious. I ended up not sending my child to this preschool, and have since visited a number of different Montessori preschools as a Children’s Services Adviser.

I will explain why I chose not to send my child there by providing a little background: Maria Montessori was an Italian visionary educator, although she was actually a medical doctor who was concerned about poor children who received no education, and who were often developmentally delayed.  She decided to do something about this and received funding for her first preschool in 1907 (similarly to Head Start Programs that started up in the United States in 1965 to help close the gap between poor and middle class children). She created special equipment and a program that had excellent outcomes for the children at her school. Western society has since adopted many of Montessori’s inventions for young children: for example, we now use small tables and chairs in preschools, and wooden puzzles with various levels of difficulty. But today’s preschools have also incorporated many other educators’ influences, ensuring that children get the best and most rounded programs. These educational influences continue to change and evolve as we learn more about child development. Montessori preschools, on the other hand, continue on much like they always have.  Activities for children involve a pass or fail (e.g. spilling water or not) and if they fail, trying again before being allowed to move onto another more challenging activity. Artwork is limited and prescriptive and can in most cases better be described as craft. For example, children may be given an outline of a car on a piece of paper, and can then ‘colour in’ the car with whatever materials are provided, e.g. using textas or bits of coloured paper that can be glued onto the paper. They can fail the activity, as the ‘colouring in’ must be within the lines of the car.

In non-Montessori preschools, children are mostly provided with a blank piece of paper and all sorts of materials and they are trusted to create whatever they desire. This opportunity and other such creative activities enhance their experience with colours and shapes and textures, it provides opportunities for prediction and experimentation, it makes them proud of their creations and achievements. Similarly, equipment in non-Montessori preschools is freely available for use, and there are no rules that prevent children from approaching a new activity until they have mastered another. They are generally supported in their experimentation and their self-esteem, and can express themselves as loudly or softly as they wish most of the time.  Instead of working alongside other children independently, they play and discover together with others, learning to negotiate, trying their leadership skills, engaging in make believe, becoming all manner of imaginary personas, readily accepted and co-believed by their peers. They watch and imitate others or find solutions together through a game or during free play experimentation.

Parent influence and requests is also much more welcome in community-based preschools, and individual children’s needs are more readily supported, whereas the rigid adherence to the Montessori method often prevent such flexibility in Montessori preschools.

In summary, genuine Montessori preschool programs are frozen in time, whereas other preschools run programs that have incorporated the best of what is available, and that keep evolving and improving. I believe that if Montessori was around today, she would be moving on too, because she was an amazingly creative and visionary woman who used her knowledge of medicine to form her educational philosophy, and to innovate equipment and programs to better the lives of poor children (and later on, not so poor children, too). If she were here today, Montessori would be utilising the latest brain research to shape her programming much like it is used in the curricula and equipment in modern non-Montessori preschools today, and she would consult with parents, who know their child best so that the child’s needs can be met and their strengths better supported. And she would be rather sad, I imagine, to find that although her teaching principles have remained religiously unchanged, the fees of Montessori preschools today are unaffordable for children who hail from a low socio-economic background. This blog was first written 30/5/11 and posted at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1436:should-i-send-my-gifted-child-to-a-montessori-preschool&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

Professor Keane’s research was about child care choices and their impact on children’s cognitive achievement. He had worked out a very complicated looking set of variables to examine how children of single mothers fared at school when they had been at home with mum during the preschool years compared with children who had attended care outside the home. His research also considered the IQs of mothers, and the final figures included over 1,400 American children, a very solid sample. When he had explained all the statistics it was time to reveal the findings, and the poor Professor became very apologetic.

He said he could not believe his own findings when he saw the figures, and had tried to twig them a little, but the data would not budge from its position. He said that he had expected that children in care would have better cognitive (eg. thinking-type ability) outcomes at school as a result of having attended care. But no. Instead, there was actually a significant negative finding for children who had not stayed at home with their mothers, especially if they had been in informal care, e.g. with their grandparents (formal care – preschools/long day care -showed no significant findings either way).

This finding contrasts the research I reviewed in my last blog, where children’s social-emotional outcomes were better if they had been cared for by their grandparents in comparison to formal care. Apparently their good influence may not extend to children’s cognitive development. Professor Keane said he had been reproached by women (clever women who came to his lectures) whose children were in care while they listened to him, who could not believe his findings and asked whether he was sure he had not made a mistake.

As he spoke, I could empathise with his concern over the results, especially as he spoke at Macquarie’s Institute of Early Childhood, where many new early childhood teachers are trained each year. One listener asked whether the result would have something to do with the mothers being single. Professor Keane answered that another researcher, Raquel Bernal, had near-identical findings with married women*.

This is not popular research findings, not the type of finding that any early childhood training institution would be looking for, nor findings the Productivity Commission would wish to air. I asked whether the paper had been published. Professor Keane answered no, the journal reviewers were still unhappy about something or other. Who knows, perhaps they are unhappy about the political incorrectness of his findings, adding to the adverse research I wrote about in my last blog. It appears that, although childcare may be good for mothers, it may not be quite so good for the children…

The good Professor summarised his findings with a statement to the effect that clever children (with high IQ mothers who were more likely to return to work because they were able to earn well) would be the most adversely affected by being cared for by others.  Something to consider when looking at child care options for your potentially gifted child!

*Bernal, R. (2008). The effect of maternal employment and child care on children’s cognitive development. International Economic Review, 49, (4), 1173-1209

This blog was first published on 23/10/09 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=858:more-research-about-who-makes-the-best-carer-mothers-or-others&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

Another issue was that they did not cater for the non-English speakers and those who are culturally diverse. Then there was the Flynn effect, the increase of about 3 points per decade in IQ scores, requiring their occasional re-norming in order to maintain the average score at 100. At one point in time there were ugly racial questions raised about which race had the highest IQ, as IQ tests were not culturally sensitive. Such issues weakened the trust people had in IQ tests. There was also the issue around what type of intelligence was being measured – was it chrystalised intelligence, based on the general information children learn, or was it fluid intelligence, which is, according to some experts, the ‘real’ native and non-learnt academic intelligence. Others again argue that everything being tested has had to be learnt to some extent, and that it does not make sense to separate chrystalised from fluid intelligence. However, new tests based on fluid intelligence were soon created, and then the exodus away from IQ tests was only a matter of time. Not only were the new tests claiming to assess fluid intelligence, but they were also cheaper, their reliability was on par with IQ tests, and they could be administered by non-psychologists, e.g. teachers. Today we have a confusing number of assessment tools available, including ‘screening’ tests, such as the Slossen Intelligence Test, which are supposed to test whether it is worth testing a child with the more extensive and expensive IQ test, but is now more often than not used as the ONLY tool! Unfortunately, according to some research (Clark, 1987), these screening tests may be quite unreliable, meaning that the results may be many points different than what would have been obtained by IQ tests. In the meantime, what has not changed is that, based on much research, the IQ test is still the most reliable indicator of school and employment success. Additionally, although non-verbal ‘fluid intelligence’ tests are indeed more culturally inclusive, verbal ability is a very important aspect of cognition that should not be minimised (Lohman, 2006). Finally, you can depend on IQ tests to identify specific domains of cognition such as verbal fluency, spatial visualization, mathematical skill and memory (Gottfredson, 1998). So if you want to find out whether your child is or is not academically gifted, and if the child is gifted, then exactly how gifted, then the IQ test is still the most reliable instrument of all.

This blog was first published 29/3/10 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=898:how-to-find-out-whether-your-child-is-academically-gifted&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

I say this because ever since the ‘70s, researchers who announce disturbing findings on children’s attachment needs or the detrimental behavioural effects of early (few weeks of age) and lengthy (11 hour days, 5 days per week) childcare have been howled down by extreme feminists claiming to speak for all women. The catch-cry message of these feminists has always been along the lines that women are not going to go backwards, that they have a right to use their brains and a right to work. Traditionally, it has predominantly been women who have nurtured and protected their children. But since the ‘70s no-one (except the researchers) have spoken up for the needs of children, which is what I mean about the baby and the bathwater. It doesn’t have to be like that, though. I consider myself a feminist, but my brand of feminism has never forced me to choose between my rights as a woman and the needs of my children. For me, feminism is large enough to include my legal right to work, fulfil my intellectual/academic needs, my biological, psychological and emotional need to have children and my desire as well as my ethical responsibility to nurture them age-appropriately. This is not Ms Roiphe’s idea. She sees stay-at-home women as child-indulgent and entrenched in the superficial. The author’s own current investment in parenthood includes a full-time nanny and an hour each morning before work “bathing dolls and all that”. In other words, she has passed on her parental responsibilities to a nanny – presumably, another woman. She also admits feeling ”unbelievably” bored watching her child cycle or ride her scooter. Although I admit that parenting can be repetitious, all jobs entail tasks we don’t enjoy. My own mother also worked, and I remember a day when I was 2 years old. I was very sad. I wanted something which I could not explain, and I could not be comforted. In frustration, my nanny finally offered me a glass of water. As I felt the cold liquid pass my lips I realised that what I was thirsting for was – my mother! This memory has stayed with me and informed my years as a feminist and a mother. At the end of the Hyper Parenting article, I was at a loss as to why Ms Roiphe chose to have a child. A counter argument to this article can be found at the following blog: http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/essentialbaby/archives/2008/06/mothering_the_most_difficult_j.html How do you feel about staying at home with young children?

This blog was first published 15/7/08 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=240:hyper-narcissistic-parenting&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

As the Director of the centre I spent my time in the preschool room, but after our talk I started making little trips down to the nursery to visit with this little boy. He was particularly gorgeous, and as I got to know him I discovered that he was also very clever. It seemed to me that all he wanted was to feel significant, and for someone to take a special interest in him. He apparently loved books, so I made him a little book, adding new pictures each day of his favourite things and people (including his mum). I wrote the words and names beneath each picture, and we would read this book each time I came. He looked forward to my visits, and he was very proud of his book, showing it to his mother when she came to pick him up. His unhappiness diminished.

The room leader in the nursery, however, had long maintained the stance that although the child whined constantly, he should not be picked up, as other children also had needs. She soon found my visits to the nursery unfair, too, as I didn’t spend the same amount of time with the other children.

I looked around and noticed that no other child joined in or was interested in the activity I did with the little boy, which I pointed out to her. He, however, loved every minute, and wanted more. I explained to her that childcare was not a communistic type of activity, where everyone was entitled to the same amount of attention, whether they needed it or not. It was about what each child wanted and needed. I think the same would be true of parenting children, although you have to be aware both as a parent and as a teacher that some children are quite forward in asking for their needs to be met, whereas others need more encouragment and extra effort.

This blog was first published on 10/8/08 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=268:should-we-treat-all-children-the-same-way&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

I tried to sell my Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition through the Australian Psychological Society last month, but no-one even gave me a call to negotiate the price. Perhaps it is a good thing that I was forced to keep it, as I sometimes use it with adults. But I don’t think I will be using it very much with children anymore.
Why? Let me go back a bit: When I completed my post graduate diploma in psychology I had to make a very difficult decision: What assessment tool or tools I should invest in for my gifted consultancy. At the same time I was excited. This was the moment I had been waiting for: Only qualified psychologists can administer or purchase IQ tests, and I was finally qualified. I wanted to be sure that I had the best tools available for assessing gifted children, and a mistake could be expensive - these tools are worth several thousand dollars each.

The choice finally boiled down to either the WISC IV AND WPPSI III to cover all ages up to 16, OR the Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition (SB5) (ages 2-90) as my start-up kit. These tests had all been recently released, had been adjusted for the Flynn effect, had undergone major revisions, and they were all normed to American children. As they were new, there was no research available to help me make an informed decision. The old Stanford-Binet Form L-M had been the preferred option for gifted children in the past, but was no longer available.

I decided on a compromise: I would purchase a WISC IV and also the SB5. This meant that I would have to use the SB5 with younger children. But it didn’t work that way: I found myself turning down clients who wanted to have their little ones tested, as I felt uncomfortable about only being able to offer the SB5 without an alternative.

Some time after my purchases, the WISC IV and WPPSI III Australian Standardised editions were released. These were normed to Australian children, and my WISC IV was automatically replaced by the supplier with the Australian version. Until this point the Departmental schools had continued to use the old Wechsler Australian normed versions. After the new release, the schools made their purchases of the Australian normed WISC IV and WPPSI III. SB5 was never normed to Australian children, and therefore was not the test of choice for the Department.

But what is the relevance of this to gifted children and my purchases? Well, a few parents who had read about the Stanford-Binet Form L-M test (and how it was the best test for gifted children) specifically requested the SB5 for the assessment of their children, and I obliged. However, hardly any time passed before they would call and ask how they could “translate” the results to the Wechsler test equivalent, despite my inclusion of reassurances in their reports. Apparently their children’s schools were reluctant to accept the results. Since then I have recommended against using the SB5, and will continue to do so.

My only exception will be in the few cases where a child will  reach the “ceiling” on a Wechsler test. In those few cases I would recommend a re-take with the SB5. This is because it has an Extended IQ that can calculate scores higher than IQ160 (the ceiling for both Wechsler tests and the SB5). With the SB5 Extended IQ, scores can be calculated up to IQ225. But there is only a slight chance I will see such a child, as there are approximately 62 Australians with FSIQ above 160 across all ages. Besides, timed tests have been kept to a minimum in the new Wechsler tests, one of the problems for gifted children, and a previous difference between the two types of tests. And as for the argument that SB5 is better at measuring fluid intelligence, the new Wechsler tests have added three measures of fluid intelligence: Matrix Reasoning, Word Reasoning, and Picture Concepts. Perhaps now you can see why I wanted to sell my SB5. Oh, and I nearly forgot to add that I invested in a WPPSI III for the little ones over a year ago, and I haven’t looked back since.

Post-Script: since I wrote this blog, Wechsler has released their own Extended Norms Technical Report #7, in order to calculate IQ scores over 160, narrowing the choices even further. MW This blog was first written 30/8/08 and posted at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=288:disadvantages-of-using-the-stanford-binet-version-5&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

For the uninitiated, preschool teachers have been advocating holding children back for years. Because of the myth that this is beneficial, further fanned by Steve Biddulph’s Raising Boys, I have had the hardest time trying to convince parents, especially parents of gifted boys, to send their children to school early. While I taught at preschool, I used to agonise over parents who politely declined my advice about sending their boys to school. I had to watch eager, bright-eyed and curious big boys with healthy self esteem shrink into dull eyed little boys, whose friends had left for school. By July of the following year most of their parents felt sorely uncomfortable, when their child’s boredom turned to challenging mischief because of pent up frustration at being kept small. But even then, most parents stubbornly held on to their strategic decision that their child would benefit and was bound to do better than others. Miranda put it brilliantly: “Knowing you’re the king pin but that you’re only that because you’re older can’t be all that good for self-esteem”. How right she is, and imagine the even worse scenario of being overtaken by someone in your class who is 18 months younger - a distinct possibility! At least, this is what the research has found, because apparently the advantage of being older eventually disappears. As I wrote in my early entry article (available on this website), age has little to do with whether a child is ready for school. My experience tells me that readiness is about a child being keen, and the research shows that it is also about social and emotional maturity. So if you are thinking of ‘holding your child back’ until s/he is 5 or 6, especially if s/he is gifted, it may be worth your while to give away Steve Biddulph’s book, suspend the early childhood myth that “children should be allowed to be children” (what exactly is that, anyway, in today’s 360 degree super-information 24/7?), and read the research. Hopefully you will be convinced of the evidence. As an added benefit, you will gain a very proud and happy child who is allowed to continue to be who he or she is – growing, developing, learning. Incidentally, earlier research has also shown that children who appeared to be immature, became more mature by simply attending school. An added problem for parents of gifted children is their child’s relative emotional immaturity in comparison with their intellectual ability, so a good idea is simply to visit school with your child and ask ”do you want to go to school next year?”. In the end it is about trusting the child and the process and allowing the child’s readiness to decide when it’s time to move on.

Here is a reference to the research article that inspired Miranda Divine to write hers:

Elder, T. E. & Lubotsky, D. H. (2009). Kindergarten entrance age and children’s achievement: Impacts of State policies, family background, and peers.(The paper is forthcoming in the Journal of Human Resources. It will be published sometime in 2009).

This blog was first published on 3/2/09 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=364:to-school-or-not-to-school-that-is-the-question&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

You may remember the blog I wrote ’To School Or Not To School’. It was about American research indicating that it is quite good to send your child to school early, and that any advantage an older school starter had due to age and maturity fell away in a few years. Now there is more evidence, this time Australian research carried out with high school students, demonstrating that longterm, starting school early is the right choice for most children.

The evidence shows that children who started school relatively early, e.g. 41/2 to 51/2 year olds, were more motivated and performed better in literacy and numeracy than those children who had commenced school later. In fact, those children who commenced school earliest performed better than all others.

I have been arguing this for years, while my early childhood colleagues have believed in holding children back, which they regularly recommend to parents with conviction. Now the research evidence is in, and I rest my case.

In my mind there are 4 important decisions parents should make in the early years:

Rule 1: If you are a mother and you are able to stay at home with your child for the first 3-4 years, do that. Why? Because that is what is best for your child.

Rule 2: Send your child to a community preschool (not day care) when he or she turns 3. With all the talk about early childhood teacher shortages, you will find that there is no shortage of early childhood teachers at preschools. Why? Because teachers love the short hours and the exciting atmosphere created by the fact that preschools are for the children. There are hardly any unhappy children at preschool, it’s a treat, and they love it. Day care, on the other hand, is there to support working parents. The kids know it and the staff knows it. For teachers, day care is hard work, and for kids it is compulsory, with the result that someone is crying somewhere in the centre on most days.

Rule 3: Don’t listen to well-meaning advice from the preschool staff about holding your child back another year before school (they especially recommend this if your child is a boy).

Rule 4: Instead, depending on the exact birthday, send your child to school as early as possible, e.g. 4 years and 9 months if the birthday is in May. This is especially the choice to make if you think your child is gifted.

This blog was first posted on 30/3/09 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=392:time-to-let-the-children-go-to-school&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

And she is advocating for a 2-year maternity/paternity leave. I was impressed with her courageous statement. But although her courage is admirable in the face of protests from staunch women’s libbers, guilty mums and women who have had to return to work, her statement is backed by solid research: Findings indicate that the first 12 months of a baby’s life is vitally important.

This is the time before the brain matures the most important part of our social and emotional behaviour, namely our ability to self regulate. What does this mean? Basically, a baby is like a tiny joey in a pouch - emotionally naked - during this first year of life. Stress or upset can only be resolved by an outside source, and the preferred outside source (or, in the language of attachment research, the principal attachment figure), is usually the mother. This is because the baby already knows mum from day one: her voice is recognised from life in her womb, and the smell of her milk can be discriminated from the milk of other mothers. Ideally, mum teaches the baby how to self soothe; signals when fear is justified; laughs away stress that is unnecessary; teaches that pain can be eased; demonstrates that she understands your needs and can help make everything better.

Around 12 months the baby starts to internalise these processes, but the establishment of the way we relate to others takes longer than 1 year, so there is still a way to go. The lesson that is learnt up until age 3 is, above all, how to trust and how to be in a close relationship. That first relationship becomes the proto-type for all others, and it is based on mutual love.

But not all of us learn that relationships can be close and that adults can be trusted. Secure attachment, which is important for healthy development, is only attained by about 66% of the population. Children can become attached to others, of course, including to their child carers. But only 42% of children do, according to a recent research finding. And a large percentage of those children are already securely attached to their parents. The alternative to secure attachment is insecure attachment, which is connected to a variety of psychological disorders.

There are probably many reasons why the Commissioner advocates for a 2 year maternity/paternity leave. One would be the finding that breastfeeding should be continued until 2 years of age, and working mothers find it difficult to continue breastfeeding. Another would be the research showing high cortisol levels in young children in child care. It appears that they find child care stressful, whereas at home or in a family day care setting, those stress levels are not nearly as high. Apparently all novelty is somewhat stressful for babies, and there is no lack of novel stuff happening in a room full of toddlers. Researchers have found similar stress in animals, and it may be that the stress in young children is related to being with a roomful of peers.

Early childhood sets up foundations that may last a whole lifetime.  It’s an inconvenient truth, I know. But this morning Gillian Calvert dared to voice it. And she got it right.

This blog was first published on 3/9/08 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=290:the-inconvenient-truth-about-being-a-parent&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

An earlier American study found that around 65% of the participating children had imaginary friends, and that such fantasy is a bonus for both cognitive (intellectual) and social development.Children with imaginary friends could safely practice resolving conflicts with the ‘friend’ and imagine solutions. On the other hand, children who did not have imaginary friends scored low on emotional understanding of others, e.g. empathy. The new Australian study found that children with imaginary friends are highly creative, more achievement oriented, and more responsive. A link to the university’s site describes the study in more detail at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2009/article/real-benefits-in-imaginary-friends. Imaginary friends can also come in handy in social situations where a child feels isolated. When my youngest daughter experienced this type of girl-bullying tactic at school, I suggested that she plays with a ’pretend’ friend instead. This did seem to comfort her at the time, although we eventually withdrew her from the school following many attempts to resolve the problem. If you are concerned that having imaginary friends may not be healthy, I can report that there is no need to worry: An earlier research did not find any detrimental effects. Here is a link with further information about that study: http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=6814I. Instead of detrimental effects, it appears that 0-7 year olds who have imaginary friends are reaping the benefits of the ‘friendship’ (although a caveat has to be that if a child is living in a fantasy world MOST of the time and/or is older, this may well be an unhealthy sign). A lovely picture book on the theme of imaginary friends is “There is a hippopotamus on our roof eating cake” by Hazel Edwards.  It is one of my favourite picture books, and if you haven’t read it with your child yet, I can highly recommend it.

This blog was first published on 5/6/09 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516:imaginary-friends-can-be-very-useful&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90