> "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.
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:
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.
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.
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.