I would take the analysis a step further and say some children are not only deeper/slower thinkers, but also decidedly non-performative thinkers. The joy, for them, is in the exploration, not the accolades. This is particularly challenging for children who are temperamentally perfectionistic, or who are quite socially attuned and are being raised in families, or placed in classes, which place outsized weight on performative academics or fitting in.
In the case of my DS, a well honed sense of cost benefit analysis often stops well-intentioned educators in their tracks. He assesses what he sees as the likely range of options that will be offered to him and, if the perceived ceiling is too low, will not invest the effort to “prove” himself because the reward isn’t sufficient. My guess is that, for many of our children, conventional settings offer too little in the way of incentive to reach, or too much discouragement for attempting to do so.
In your shoes? I’d play at math at home for a couple of weeks and see where it leads. Cover a sprinkling of topics and map them to your local curriculum norms. Keep track of dates the topics are covered, or measure your child with a timer (on the QT, if they devour content in one sitting). Then, have a candid conversation with the school about options. I’ve found placing emphasis on the student’s sense of identity as a learner, emotional well being, and self-efficacy is the lens that pays with the educational zeitgeist here, not boredom or poor academic fit.
And re: math gifted children invariably seeking out challenges, no. Learned helplessness is a real phenomenon, as is a gulf between ability and access to opportunity, and both are mediated by a host of environmental, temperamental, cultural, and socio-demographic factors. Also, stereotype threat is a real source of academic derailment, particularly in STEM, and especially among females, racial or linguistic minority students, and students coming from families with limited means.
