3 ms·

Keeping children who’re perfectly capable of doing sixth grade work doing fifth grade work isn’t as bad but it’s still a waste off their time and a lesson in th

Keeping children who’re perfectly capable of doing sixth grade work doing fifth grade work isn’t as bad but it’s still a waste off their time and a lesson in the actual priorities of the school system, which certainly don’t have learning among the top five.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Some parents don't really have the best interests of their children at heart. "Hot housing" children does not make for better future outcomes. It just deprives children of their childhood.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > "Hot housing" children does not make for better future outcomes. I would welcome any research to that effect if you have it to hand. I am not an expert but if you search gwern.net for “gifted education”, “acceleration” “SMPY” or “Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth” you’ll find many papers on this general topic. There’s nothing there showing negative effects and quite a bit that’s positive.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    It's a term coined by researchers and I believe it was used in the name of a book at some point. I can't readily find the book, but I found this article: https://www.verywellfamily.com/hothouse-children-1449187 https://www.verywellfamily.com/hothouse-children-1449187 I was briefly Director of Community Life for The TAG Project and was a low level presenter at, I believe, a Beyond IQ conference one year a long time ago when my kids were still kids. I'm fairly familiar with the research. Yes, holding back kids that are actually gifted is harmful to them. So is putting a child on a treadmill to satisfy the ego of the neurotic parents.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - woofie11 7y ago
      No. It isn't fundamentally harmful to children. It depends on how it's done. One of the major differences between effective programs and harmful ones are the attitudes of the children in those programs. Both the hothouse parents described, and programs for kids "behind standards" push really hard with rote learning, high-pressure, and often punishment. On the other hand, effective programs, both for kids ahead, behind, and at grade-level have richer activities which build love-of-learning. As a footnote, I looked at the web site you linked to. It cites a bunch of widely discredited Piagetan nonsense.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Some parents don't really have the best interests of their children at heart. "Hot housing" children does not make for better future outcomes. It just deprives children of their childhood.

barry-cotter 7y ago
> "Hot housing" children does not make for better future outcomes. I would welcome any research to that effect if you have it to hand. I am not an expert but if you search gwern.net for “gifted education”, “acceleration” “SMPY” or “Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth” you’ll find many papers on this general topic. There’s nothing there showing negative effects and quite a bit that’s positive.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  It's a term coined by researchers and I believe it was used in the name of a book at some point. I can't readily find the book, but I found this article: https://www.verywellfamily.com/hothouse-children-1449187 https://www.verywellfamily.com/hothouse-children-1449187 I was briefly Director of Community Life for The TAG Project and was a low level presenter at, I believe, a Beyond IQ conference one year a long time ago when my kids were still kids. I'm fairly familiar with the research. Yes, holding back kids that are actually gifted is harmful to them. So is putting a child on a treadmill to satisfy the ego of the neurotic parents.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - woofie11 7y ago
    No. It isn't fundamentally harmful to children. It depends on how it's done. One of the major differences between effective programs and harmful ones are the attitudes of the children in those programs. Both the hothouse parents described, and programs for kids "behind standards" push really hard with rote learning, high-pressure, and often punishment. On the other hand, effective programs, both for kids ahead, behind, and at grade-level have richer activities which build love-of-learning. As a footnote, I looked at the web site you linked to. It cites a bunch of widely discredited Piagetan nonsense.