| ▲ | zem 12 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
depends on your goal. I agree that "push them to become the next Einstein" is humbug, but "learn things appropriate to their intellectual development while staying with their age cohort" seems like a better outcome than either being bored and learning nothing in a regular class, or skipping a grade and having to cope with being a year younger than everyone else. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | roncesvalles 11 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
That "smart kids are bored in class" thing is bs unless your kid has savant intelligence (Terence Tao level). If your kid is very bright, it's better for him/her to be among general peers and experience what it's like to be top of the class. In my opinion the confidence that this instills is more important than "not being bored". All the serious learning happens in high school anyway. Some parents who rabidly pursue gifted programs deep down know that their kid is not special, but are hoping that the giftedness of other kids in class will rub off on their kid, or that the higher level of education will push their kid from average to above-average. That's also where the "smart kids are bored in class (and hence not doing great)" comes from. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||