I don’t know about 10% (the article I posted above seems to contradict that), but those very top ones that are world class achieve that level largely no thanks to the US school curriculum. They supplement at home with European or Asian textbooks from their home countries and/or the AoPS series.
I speak from personal experience here.
But if bringing up depth in the thread about math instruction for advanced learners is offtopic, I apologize.
Changes are probably necessary, but they are hard to institute and, then, there is the issue of every parent wanting their kid to be labeled as “gifted”.
I would be very leery of getting my child labeled “gifted”. It affects them the wrong way psychologically. I don’t need them to build up that self-image. I want them to think they are normal. Fortunately they are in a private school, and these labels are avoided, and kids generally fluidly do whatever they want to do.
I have to agree about the poor quality of the middle school science curriculum - plus it’s repetitive. My kids first learned about the water cycle in 3/4th grade - not sure why they needed to review that again in middle school. In terms of the math/science performance of US kids, how was that measured? Are we talking about PISA?
I don’t know which specific “international study of 12th-graders” he refers to, but there’s a wide body of evidence.
I don’t doubt that, was just curious what the data source was.
I’m not a fan of the “gifted” label myself. Most districts in MA don’t offer gifted programs anyway.
You don’t have to label it in any specific way so long as you provide differentiated instruction.
Having a child in the 99th percentile of ability spend their school career studying standard curriculum in a regular classroom is wasting precious time that is crucial to their intellectual development.
And simply accelerating such a child by a year, two, or three will still leave them underchallenged in a regular math classroom. It’s about more than just speed. They do need greater depth to reach their full potential.
Oh, I’m sorry I had no idea you were talking Pre-K. Yes, drilling tiny tots is insane!!! IMO, parents drilling kids at any age is odd at best. This is particularly true if they are teaching them so they can “keep up” in an advanced program. This should come naturally or just leave kids where they are.
I agree. I just don’t have any answers. There is also the issue of kids with strong aptitude and low interest like my son. He started doing basic arithmetic, verbally, at age 2. In early elementary he invented a novel form of doing long division (teacher had never seen it in 20 years in the classroom) which worked but was more cumbersome than traditional methods. He excelled in math Olympiad - outperforming kids who were accelerated through RSM etc. But he resisted extra math or other enrichment opportunities when offered. As a 10th grader math is his least favorite subject although he finds it “easy”. It’s a puzzle to me and one of the reasons I’ve followed this thread.
Math and sciences are hierarchical. A tall building without rock solid foundation is likely to run into problems at some point. The regular school curriculum fails to build that foundation. In this country (and a few others), curricula aren’t created by educators with deep training in math and sciences. Instead, people with background in so-called “education” are tinkering with the curricula, putting their “expertise” and “theories” they “learned”, or more accurately “invented”, in “education” to work. Every time you hear there’s a new idea in K-12 education or curriculum, you should know what to expect.
You need to find him like minded company. Even one friend in that space might help. More is better. He may be more receptive if those friends are within the school than outside.
Yes. But this is the challenge. It doesn’t help much if your kid accelerates by a year but needs +2 acceleration that year. Some curriculum styles work very well as kids can go at their own pace. But most educational instruction is class based and is problematic to both the advanced kids and those who need assistance.
In terms of the gifted label, IMO it is definitely problematic esp if parents use the term rather than it being based on other factors. Still people do not all have the same learning styles and capabilities, or learn at the same pace. Gifted programs are mostly non-existent in our state though they were popular in the 1970s and 80’s. Giftedness is a separate issue, IMO, and is way off topic.
If “gifted” (whether that label is attached or not), your kid will not likely feel normal in a class with a cross section of kids. If anything it may give him/her a sense that they are smarter than they are because they may only see one or two (or maybe no) kids near his/her level. And in the process likely will be bored. Put them with other smart kids likely helps with both issues. Though ultimately, that will all vary by kid and by school/program (in addition to being ahead in terms of concepts, you also spend less time teaching same concepts to smarter kids meaning there is more time to go deeper/broader–though not all schools/programs/teachers do that). YMMV as they say.
This discussion brings to mind what California is currently contemplating, which would effectively force all kids regardless of aptitude to be in the same basic math classes until 10th grade and end differentiated tracks until very late. This seems to be a terrible idea but it has its proponents. It brings to mind what happened in NYC when they killed the gifted programs to try and improve equity and it resulted in fewer underprivileged kids earning spots in the elite magnet schools because they were less prepared.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/04/california-math-class-detrack-race-equity/
Is this result of some education “research”? 
Yes, but it’s contested.
The attack on gifted/special/differentiated/whateveryouwannacallit education in the name of equity that is currently unfolding is deeply troubling.
The easiest way to narrow the achievement gap is to sabotage the top achievers, or better yet abandon the notion of academic excellence altogether by dealing away with tests, grades, and ultimately the learning itself.
And, ironically this means that low income high achieving kids have fewer resources within their own school. Higher income kids will get sent to specialty programs and camps. The educational gap gets wider and it doesn’t solve any issues.