I still think that there is a big difference between skipping a COUPLE of grades (which would mean a child who is a 16yo college freshman) versus skipping 4-8 grades, which is what the Harding family seems to be suggesting is a desirable and attainable thing for any dedicated family if they just homeschool with the right mindset and materials.
Frankly, while there
are homeschooling curricula that I'd call "solid" for K-8, most of the prepackaged ones are downright deplorable for science and math at the secondary level. I was
not a fan of Calvert for science/math, and didn't think it was anything all that special for literacy, either. This is the curriculum that our charter school used when my DD was in 3rd-5th grade. I did not personally feel that it was all that great, and I looked at Abeka and found it highly deficient (in my opinion).
No better than public school curricula for the masses, basically.
Eclectic/WTM materials are another matter.
I guess the other thing is the notion of year-round homeschool, which many families do pursue. That generally results in about a 2y acceleration automatically if you do it for 10 years.
But it doesn't result in 3-4y accelerations unless you are pacing things faster or skimming topics.
Statistically, though, how unusual are HG children? Rare, right? So "many" is a specious term to be using there, and I am suspicious that this is about marketing, not reality, and is setting up kids who are bright/MG to be labeled failures because that kind of system doesn't "work" to produce the desired 12yo matriculations with that more plentiful cohort.
put their kids through a boxed curriculum (like Abeka or Calvert) without any differentiation or rabbit trails
My horrified question there (being familiar with both, as noted)-- is WHY?? WHY would a parent
do that?? If the child is advanced enough that a 2X rate is 'appropriate' and that college-level material is
necessary at age 10-12...
then WHY would you keep your child locked into that type of lackluster curriculum for those first 7 years to begin with?? Wouldn't you seek out something more suitable for their learning needs?
Holey moley, I do
not understand that one. That curriculum-- alone, without side trips, etc-- is
seriously not suited to gifted learning needs without a heckuva lot of differentiation and enrichment, and even then it is not a comfortable fit by any means. We should know-- we've been doing it for years.
In that case, I am still left scratching my head at the willingness to send the child to COLLEGE, but not to provide more meaningful preparation at the primary and secondary levels. It's like treating K-12 as a
sprint or something. I don't get it-- for a MG child
or for a PG one.
I'm horrified that a parent would push children to adulthood to "maximize lifetime earnings" for that child. If true, that is seriously among the very worst arguments I have ever heard for acceleration of a child. WOW.
