I'm not convinced that lack of challenge necessarily causes long-term issues. It may for some kids, but most of the adults I know had no challenge in school and still managed to develop into great human beings, create fantastic careers, and make their lives something fabulous.
Necessarily? No. I agree. Everyone is different.
But I have a really hard time thinking that because people are sometimes able to overcome crummy circumstances, it means that it's perfectly okay to keep kids in crummy circumstances. The logic there doesn't work for me. Unless you think the kids are being made better by the crummy circumstances, the ends don't justify the means.
If we can do better for them--whatever better is, given an individual child's and family's needs--why not do it?
That's why I like the idea of looking at all the options available and going for the least-worst, rather than saying "how much damage is what we're doing going to do to my child?" Casting a wider net makes better sense to me.
