IMO, there is a difference between following a child's lead, etc. and "hothousing". Hothousing is when the parent actively drills information into the child because they want the child to know/do X early.
I guess I disagree. I'm not sure I can know what motivates someone else. I also wouldn't be surprised if being driven by pride in your child's accomplishments isn't biologically hard-wired. It makes sense: mammalian and avian parents teach their young. Hothousing could simply be an extension of that.
Also, I don't see what's wrong with teaching a child at a young age, provided the child isn't crying and miserable about it. In fact, parents who push their kids beyond their comfort zones are probably doing them a favor by allowing the kids to see for themselves that they can do things that aren't immediately easy. If this lesson starts at a very young age, it probably translates into a huge benefit later.
I do think that it's the practice of Hothousing that gives parents like those on this board a bad name.
I've often heard that teachers hear "my child is gifted" many times, but I haven't seen an actual study or survey showing how often it happens. It's more likely that the simple rarity of gifted kids (say, IQ 130+) creates a bias.
This bias happens all the time with rare diseases. Doctors are loathe to believe that a patient has a rare disease (two common phrases in medical teaching: "If you heard hoofbeats in Central Park, think horses, not zebras" and "Common things happen commonly."). So, people with rare disorders are often stuck going from doctor to doctor trying to get the right diagnosis.
Educators may simply have this same bias: what's more likely: that a student has a 1:100 or 1:1000 etc IQ or that s/he's in the
other 99+%?
I haven't found anyone who thinks hothousing is a good thing. ... I do stand by my conviction that if a parent has to drill a child on formal (sit down style)reading lessons for over 2 years so the parent can say "Janey started reading at age 4 because I taught her!" and not because the child had any interest in the subject then that *is* an example of hot housing and it *is* a negative thing.
Again, I don't know about other people's motivations. I also disagree, provided the kid isn't completely miserable.
We all have to do things that are difficult or unpleasant yet have a purpose (washing dishes, dealing with traffic, etc.). I don't see anything wrong with exposing any child to a subject that might be hard or not a ton of fun, in moderation.
What I don't agree with is pretending that learning is always fun and should always be driven by the student's interests alone. Sometimes the subject is not your favorite, but you have to learn it to get the degree/certificate/whatever.
Also, there are times when learning involves very hard work --- yet it can have a huge payoff. I'll only flex on this point if someone can show me someone who assimilates, for example, Paul Dirac's papers as casual easy reading.
Finally, I don't understand why only gifted kids seem to be allowed to benefit from extra parental tutoring. What's so wrong about trying to help any child stretch his limits? Why are only parents of (highly) gifted kids allowed to advocate for more challenging schoolwork? I get this "us and them" message loud and clear when people say that "those hothousers give us a bad name."
Who's a hothouser and who isn't?
I mean, parents and kids with IQs of 195 might consider parents of kids with IQs of 150 to be "hothousing" and giving the PG+++ kid and his parents a bad name.
Again, not trying to be offensive. Just trying to show another side to the story.Val
