Are we desensitised to sex on tv?

I had written to ST Forum a couple of days ago. My letter was published but in the online version, not the print paper. Here it is in full:

ON THE first night of Chinese New Year, MediaCorp screened a movie, The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Due to its adult content, the show was screened at 10pm.

But I was disgusted by the trailer for the movie which was shown repeatedly during prime time from 7pm, when many children were watching television.

The trailer had blatant sexual innuendoes and scenes. It was obviously not suitable for children. Yet this, for some reason, escaped MediaCorp. I cannot help but wonder if MediaCorp is so desensitised it is oblivious to the inappropriateness of such content during prime time. Or has the priority of promoting a movie overtaken that of social consciousness?

I am no prude. But I wonder at the double standards of scheduling an adult show at 10pm while allowing the trailers to be shown at 7pm. It is bad enough that prime-time movies often have extreme violence as a matter of course, and even children's programmes these days use sex as an easy sell.

I was perturbed to learn that the popular cartoon Winx Club, whose viewership is predominantly young girls aged five to 10, features kissing scenes and has female characters lust after boys and enter into boy-girl relationships as casually as they change their clothes.

I do not believe in completely shielding children from the realities of life. But in this complicated world where kids grow up too quickly, it does not help to have the media continuously reinforce the message that sex and violence are normal, casual activities.

I used to think that mothers who ban their children from watching TV are tyrants - now I think perhaps they are the sensible ones.


Because the online version of ST has a much younger readership, as I'd expected, there were many comments saying it's ok! what's the big deal? Which reinforces my point that in this generation, we have become desensitised to sex on tv because it's so rampant that it's now considered acceptable (together with violence and vulgar languages).

I think non-parents are less likely to empathise with me on this issue (it's cliche I know, but really, you won't understand till you have kids), but I'm curious as to how other parents feel. Do you feel the same way or do you think I'm over-reacting? Banning tv is not an option for now (Elan, thumbs up for you!), but I think we'll be limiting it to DVDs and documentaries for now.

Classic book series for girls

Growing up, I was a voracious reader. On Saturdays, my father would deposit me at the Yaohan bookshop while he went to his office in the next building for a couple of hours of work. I would happily plonk myself on the ground and devour book after book until he came to get me. I couldn't have been more than 9 years old then, but we never thought about security issues. I guess it was a more innocent world back then.

Inevitably, there were certain books which became favourites. When I first learned how to read, the Enid Blytons were a clear forerunner, as was common among most children those days, but they quickly gave way to writers whose characters had much more depth. Enid Blyton is ok light reading for very young kids, but in my opinion, her characters are often as one-dimensional as those in Mediacorp drama serials.

I loved stories of gutsy female characters and their lives (even though some of them are just a tad pious). I especially loved (and still love) series because there's something about ongoing installments that allow you to trace the evolvement of characters over time, something single books sometimes don't have the luxury to do.

Kids these days have such a wide variety of exceptional books to choose from, but I thought I'd share some of my favourites which are true classics and will never go out of style. Although there's no rule that boys can't read them, they would definitely appeal more to girls. Some of these books, I collected as a child and kept them, but since pocket money was limited, most of them I added to my collection when I was already an adult. I think books are an everlasting investment, they can be passed on and they only grow more precious with age.

So here are my four all-time classic book series for girls:

1) The Little House series by Laura Ingalls Wilder

Laura Ingalls Wilder published the first book "Little House in the Big Woods" in 1932 at the ripe old age of 65, so let that be a reminder that you're never too old to live your dreams! The series was the first to paint a clear picture of the difficult and fascinating life in the American frontier in the late 1800s.

I was given the first book when I was 8 (the one on the top of the pile) and I just fell in love with the characters. I went on to become addicted to the tv series and have since acquired many of the related books on Wilder's life (I even have the Little House cookbook!) but nothing comes close to the original book series.

2) The Melendy Children series by Elizabeth Enright

Elizabeth Enright is an award-winning author, having won the Newberry Medal for Thimble Summer and the Newberry Honor for Gone-Away Lake, both great books. But her books about the Melendy kids were the ones that captivated me. First published in 1941, the series is a family of four kids with their widowed father and a loving housekeeper. All four kids are very distinctive and believable characters, and their adventures are told in a humourous and engaging manner.

The series comprises four books (in this order) - The Saturdays, The Four-Storey Mistake, Then There Were Five, and Spiderweb for Two.


3) The Anne series by LM Montgomery

Anne of Green Gables was the primary reason why I spelled the "Anne" in Lesley-Anne with an "e" instead of Lesley-Ann. How to forget Anne's soliloquy: "If you call me Anne, please call me Anne spelled with an e... When you hear a name pronounced can't you always see it in your mind, just as if it was printed out? I can; and A-N-N looks dreadful, but A-N-N-E looks so much more distinguished."

LM Montgomery is a delightful story-teller and I lived and breathed Anne when I read about her. The full series chronicling the disarming redhead's life to adulthood is covered over eight books.

4) The Gemma series by Noel Streatfeild

Noel Streatfeild's unique writing style is that she writes about kids growing up on the stage, based on her own childhood experiences. Her most famous book is probably Ballet Shoes, which has been adapted for television. Girls who love dance or music or drama are likely to enjoy her stories. The Gemma series is not as well known, but I loved reading about how the Robinson family deals with the artistic talents of the kids and the backroom scenes of the arts industry in the UK.

There are four books in this series: Gemma, Gemma and Sisters, Gemma Alone, and Goodbye Gemma.

The tale of the ox and the dragon

This is Lesley-Anne's year - the year of the ox. I don't believe in the zodiac traits but funnily enough, both my kids possess some of the characteristics that their Chinese zodiac signs claim to have. As the ox, Lesley-Anne is diligent and conscientious, often working hard to perform and achieve. On the other hand, Andre the dragon is full of life and somehow is able to get what he wants without really much effort.

Since I did a photo chronology of both of them for Christmas, I thought I'd do one tracing their development over the past Chinese New Years. And here is the story of the ox and the dragon.

CNY 2004:

Andre was three then and I remember he was so fond of Mandarin oranges that he pilfered a whole bunch of them from his grandmother's house and hid them in my bag!

CNY 2005:

CNY 2006:

This was the cutest stage. Both of them were totally adorable. Where did my babies go??

CNY 2007:

CNY 2008:

And this year, CNY 2009:













Gongxi Facai everyone!

Mummy dearest - the dubious Top 10

Post no.100! I can't believe I've found so much to talk about.

The 100th post should be a memorable one so I've decided to compile a Top 10 list (I just love me lists!) This might be considered controversial and could get me on the blacklist of some parents, but I couldn't resist.

This is a Top 10 list of the type of nightmare parents who make me squirm. When I meet any of them, I immediately devise a getaway plan. I'm pretty sure you'll recognise some, if not all of them.

1. The "Ain't she sweet" Parent

This is the teacher's nightmare. Basically, this child can do no wrong in his parent's eyes. If she's throwing a tantrum, she's just "sensitive". If she's beating up other kids, she's "active". When she says something rude, the parent laughs it off as if it's the most amusing thing ever. And if any teacher dares to reprimand the child, she'll get, "I tell my father!" followed by an earful from the parent and a threatened lawsuit.

2. The "Kiasu competition sure win" Parent

Most Singaporean parents (me included) are kiasu to some extent. But this one will do anything to get ahead. (The father who took the exam for his son probably falls under this category!) This parent, when reading my post on why coaching for GEP is unethical, will immediately think, "Wah, got coaching for GEP! Where?" The motivation to get ahead can even inspire downright rude behaviour. He is the one who shoves his kids into the lift without letting people out first, lets them cut queues, and encourages them to hide library books so other kids can't find them.

3. The "See no evil, hear no evil" Parent

You can sense the presence of this parent even before you spot her because her kids will be screaming at impressive Mariah Carey pitches and hurtling in between legs and toys at the department store. And when you spot her, you're likely to find her nonchalantly standing at the side, oblivious to the flustered salesperson and other disapproving parents. In fact, she's probably even on her cell phone, having a leisurely conversation with her bff (best female friend).

4. The "Anything yours can do, mine can do better" Parent

This parent has enrolled his child in a competition with all other kids. The problem is, the competition is in his head and nobody else is participating. If your kid can draw a car at age 3, his can draw a mountain bike complete with Lance Armstrong. If you say your kid has 10 friends, he'll say his has 15. If pushed hard enough, you can probably get this parent to say his kid turned down a personal invitation by NASA to fly a space shuttle.

5. The "Mine can't do anything (but still managed to thrash yours)" Parent

Actually, this parent annoys me even more than the previous one because he's equally competitive but pretends not to be. He'll say something like "oh, she's very lazy" or "she's not very bright", then later manage to drop in the conversation that she topped her class. You can easily recognise these two types of parents in that they're never happy about your kid's achievements but they always expect you to applaud theirs.

6. The "Whack you upside-down" Parent

While most parents on this list can be said to be over-indulgent or over-protective, this one is the opposite. You can often spot this one in a public place, bellowing and wagging a finger at a child who's completely cowed. Often for a misdemeanour as minor as forgetting to bring his water bottle. This one makes me cringe because I usually end up feeling so sorry for the kid who is being humiliated.

7. The "You can't do anything good enough" Parent

The child of this parent also has my sympathy because she's always trying to please but nothing she does is ever good enough. Aiyoh, this parent has standards higher than the Chrysler Building. If the child comes home with 7 As and 1 B, the parent will harp on the B. Getting a "well done!" out of this parent is harder than getting a penguin to fly.

8. The "Chao kwan" Parent

This parent has the hide of a rhino. He doesn't care who he has to bulldoze to get what he wants because he feels the rules don't apply to him. This is the parent who will ask for contacts or learning resources but never shares his. He is the one who, at the Parent-Teacher meeting, will hog the teacher's time for 45 minutes, conveniently disregarding the long line of disgruntled parents behind him.

9. The "Blow-by-blow account" Parent

This parent is so enamoured by her child that she's obliged to share every minute detail of his existence with you. "He's so cute when he's asleep, he makes a soft 'ff-pff sound when he breathes!" By the time she's 10 minutes into her son's bowel habits, you start thinking that migration probably isn't so bad if it gets you away from her permanently.

10. The "Sugar and spice" Parent

This parent is similar to the previous one in that she's equally enchanted by her child, but the irritant is not in the details but the bucket of saccharine she pours onto her stories. She calls her kid "sweetie pie" or "honey bunny", she never loses her temper, and he's always unbelievably angelic. Her life appears to be like something out of a Strawberry Shortcake cartoon. Too much time spent with this parent and you run the risk of gagging from a sugar overload.


This list is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, I hope I've not offended anyone. And if you are offended, then chances you're one of those parents, in which case I don't really need to know about it. (Really! I don't! Please don't email me to scold me.)

At any rate, we're all probably a little of each of these types at some point, like if I meet an "Anything yours can do, mine can do better" parent, after a while, I feel the inexplicable urge to start declaring my child's achievements.

Nobody's perfect, so let's just laugh at ourselves ok?

Are you a key?

Let me first ask an obtuse question: As a parent, are you a key?

At first glance, it would seem like a good thing, being a key. After all, a key opens many things. "Key" is often used to describe things of importance - "the key to the problem" or "the key principle", for instance. Many parents would, indeed, consider themselves "keys" in their relationship with their kids in that they are a central part of their kids' lives.

I thought long and hard about an analogy and I used this one because a key appears to be significant in a positive way. But being a key is not always a good thing. The problem is that if we as parents are keys, it means that our children are locks or doors or whatever that need keys to function (ok! ok! my analogy is a little clumsy, but hear me out).

In my observation of parents, I found that some have turned themselves into the Master Key, meaning they control fully the actions of their children. They have made their kids so dependent on them that by themselves, their kids are completely unable to achieve anything, even function as a human being. Haven't you ever met these parents? Their kids are unable to do anything for themselves. In fact, some of them, when they've grown up, are unable to hold down a job and continue to sponge off their parents.

Parents who are keys often appear to be loving parents because they dote on their kids, wait on them hand and foot, and meet their every need (and more). I have seen teenagers who've never taken the bus on their own, who recklessly squander their parents' money, who wouldn't be able to iron a handkerchief if their lives depended on it.

Beneath the veneer of what these parents call love, I believe is a deeper issue - one of insecurity. Whether conscious or sub-conscious, raising dependent children reflects on parents' more insidious fears that they will one day not be needed, so they strive to be indispensable in their kids' lives.

When I was heading a corporate communications department at a local university, I came across this quote which stuck with me:

"The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." - Ralph Nader

An insecure leader only breeds followers because he is afraid of being overtaken. The true leader who cares about the development of his people and is secure in his own ability grooms more leaders so they can better contribute. In the same way, an insecure parent raises reliant kids so that his own position might not be threatened. A secure parent, on the other hand, raises independent children who will be able to look after themselves and others in the future.

I'm not saying all parents who molly-coddle their kids are just selfish at heart. I know some parents who do everything for their kids because they're overly anxious over their kids' safety and are afraid that something bad will happen to them. Others just think that their kids are incapable of doing things for themselves (in their hearts, their kids will always be their babies, whether they're 5 or 25).

To the first group, I say, if you don't ever let anything happen to your kids, the problem is nothing ever will. Your kid will probably live a safe life but it's hardly a life. To the second group, I say, don't underestimate your kids! They're probably capable of so much more, if only you'll let them try, maybe fall down a few times. It doesn't mean you love them any less. In fact, you're probably showing that you love them more.

I wrote this post because I have too often, come across many parents (across generations) who are keys. And it bugs me to see so many kids who are not growing up to be edifying members of society. I know, I know, you can't blame parents for everything. But hopefully we can do our part to gently steer our kids on the right track.

Sorry this post has turned out to be somewhat of a sermon. So I'll end with the same question: Are you a key? I hope your answer is no.

The appalling standard of English in schools

I'm prompted to write this post because Andre came home with a spelling list last week and one of the items on the list was "swimming gears". I had to explain to him that "gear" used in this manner was a collective noun, like "equipment", there shouldn't be an "s" (unless they meant actual gears that could swim, which I seriously doubt...) What I couldn't explain to him was how it could appear on a spelling list that would supposedly have been set and approved by a few English teachers.

Andre also told me that his teacher explained the difference between "suitcase" and "luggage". She said suitcase refers to the actual bag whereas luggage refers to the items inside, that's why you use the phrase "unpack your luggage". Aiyoh, there are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin!

In the end, I called the school's English Head of Department to inform her of the "swimming gears" error, but I let the luggage issue slide with just an explanation to Andre because he was very uncomfortable with the thought of me telling his teacher she was wrong. "Aiyah, she's very nice already, you know!" he protested. In his eyes, having a nice teacher more than makes up for her linguistic shortcomings.

It just vexes me that my kids are picking up bad English in school, of all places. And the problem appears to be endemic - I've spotted grammar and spelling errors even in the English exam papers of the top schools. (Here's one: "Mother sewed the hole in Peter's shirt.") As mentioned in an early post, a friend of mine was appalled that her son, who attends a mission school, told her his teacher pronounced "kennel" as "canal" and told him to "on the computer". The latest anecdote - the same teacher taught the class that "Tom's father reads papers." The worst part is that the child treats his teacher's words as the gospel truth, so my friend has a hard time trying to correct his mistakes.

Is it my imagination or is the situation getting worse? You would have thought that after decades of adopting English as 1st language, standards would have improved but on the contrary, I believe they have declined. I'm really not sure why. I was recently lamenting about it to a friend, saying all these teachers were supposed to be trained and she said, "well, maybe all the trainers in NIE are teaching bad English!"

Could it be, that the reason why bad English is so pervasive in schools is because it's being handed down like some long-standing tradition? When Lesley-Anne was in p2, she wrote in her composition, "After hearing the news, it made Jane feel better." Her English teacher corrected "feel" and wrote "felt". Thankfully Lesley-Anne was confident enough about her English to know her teacher was wrong, but what a fiasco.

I don't know if our multi-racial, multi-cultural society makes it harder for us to pick up the language because we're confused by all the different language systems and rules. Or maybe Singaporeans can only learn by fixed formulae and rules, so while we can shine in subjects like maths, we falter in areas like languages which require a certain amount of intuition and familiarity since the rules tend to be more arbitrary.

I have no idea. I also have no idea how to solve the problem, except on my own little part, to correct my kids when I spot the errors. What I do know is that all these kids who learn sub-par English will grow up imparting this same standard to the next generation.

I also know that bad English is widespread in Singapore, not just in schools. I've spotted bad grammar and spelling in the most unlikely places - signs at community centres, government brochures, even in the national newspapers and media websites! When I was at one of the National Library branches, I spotted a sign above the bookdrop - "24-hours bookdrop". (For those of you who are unaware, it should be "hour" without the "s"). If even the national body promoting reading and literacy can make elementary English mistakes, I think the situation looks bleak for the rest of the population.

Would you take the exam for your child?

I was so tickled by a recent news article - in all our jokes about the Singapore parent being kiasu-ness, this one takes the cake! (Ok, it's not a Singaporean parent but Japanese, but still it's the same Asian emphasis on exams). It just boggles the mind the extreme measures some parents will take to get their children ahead.

And come on, I'm sure many of us, especially when we're struggling to drum something into our kids' brains, often wished we could just take the exams in their place. The difference is that this father actually did it.

Dad posed as son in exam

Wed, Jan 14, 2009
AFP

TOKYO - A 54-YEAR-old Japanese man was caught impersonating his 20-year-old son to take an exam, even getting a perm to make himself look younger, an official said on Wednesday.

The father, who runs a medication distribution company, sat a test for a licence to handle over-the-counter drugs so that his son could work with him, said an official in Nara prefecture in western Japan.

An examiner noticed that the man looked unusually old, said local government official Masaaki Nakamori.

'A 20-year-old and a 54-year-old are aged differently. But he looked like the photo on the exam admission card,' Mr Nakamori said.

The father, whose name was not released, earned his own licence last year, taking the exam with a photo showing him with straight hair and glasses.

'This time, he curled his hair and did not wear his glasses,' Mr Nakamori said.

The man put his face down intently near the desk as he took the exam, he said.

'When the test monitor approached him, he admitted it and apologised. He said, from the application process to actual testing, he did it all himself without telling his son,' Mr Nakamori said. -- AFP

The world according to Andre

Here's one of Andre's classic foibles to end the work week on a light note.

Yesterday, Andre was reading a comprehension passage about Japan being known as the "Land of the Rising Sun".

Andre: Why is Japan called the Land of the Rising Sun?

Me: Well, as you know, the sun rises in the... ?

Andre: Morning.

Me: No lah!

Andre: Huh? You mean it rises at night?

Me: Haiyah! The sun rises in the East!

Andre: Hah?

Me (despairing): Don't tell me you don't know the sun rises in the East and sets in the West!

Andre: I don't know what is East and West! Which side is East?

Me: East is the right side, West is the left.

Andre: So you mean the sun rises here? (waves right hand)

Me: Not YOUR East lah! Do you think the sun rises and sets with you??

Andre (protesting): I don't know mah. I never learnt history.


TGIF!

Telling time and counting money... in time for p1

A friend mentioned in passing the need to teach her son how to tell time before he entered p1 next year. I thought I'd recount how I helped Andre manage the two things that most parents would agree are critical when starting school - how to tell time and count money.

Please note this post is not going to tell you HOW to teach the two things (what? am I a teacher now??) I'm just going to tell you how I helped Andre MANAGE the two issues (which is a nice way of saying that he wasn't very good at them when he started school, haha).

The funny thing is that both topics are in the p1 syllabus but yet the kids are expected to know them before starting p1, for pragmatic reasons. Discounting the maths whizzes, many kids find the concept of time and money a little confusing. This is because at that age, the maths they're more familiar with generally deals with numbers in a linear fashion, starting from 1. Neither time nor money handles numbers this way (well, money does but it's more complicated because you have to think about the decimals).

When it comes to time, the 60-minute hour concept is complex. Most kids can manage the hour and half-hour concepts but the minutes are tricky. Andre only grasped this concept fully when he learned the 5 times tables, then Kenneth taught him how to count in 5 minute intervals. It was quite effective. Motivation helps - another mother said if you tell your kid, "20 minutes before you can watch tv!" or "half an hour later, I'll give you a piece of chocolate", he'll catch on pretty quickly. Actually, you'll find that telling time isn't that critical a skill in the beginning anyway, ie the kids are herded like sheep to all their classes. Unless, like another mother reminded me, your kid wants to know how many more minutes till recess. LOL. And even then, the solution is simple - get a digital watch lor.

As for money, we tried to teach Andre before he started school but he found all the cents confusing. When you've only learnt how to count to 100 and add single digits mentally, 65 cents minus 25 cents is way complicated. It also took him a while to apply the concept of 100 cents = $1, ie how much change to get back if you give $1 and the item costs 40 cents? After a few sessions of playing shop (and disastrous change-giving), we decided it would be easier to just give Andre his pocket money in 10-cent denominations. So if the item costs 50 cents, it's just 5 coins. Simple.

Another solution I noticed that parents frequently used was to give their kids $1 coins or $2 notes. Since almost nothing in a primary school canteen costs over $2, the kid just hands over the note and trusts the auntie to give back the correct change. Of course it's ideal if the child actually knows how much change he should get, but he'll figure it out eventually.

The first day of school, we packed a snack for Andre and because parents were allowed on Day 1, we watched him dutifully sit down with his buddy at recess and eat his snack. On Day 2, relishing his new-found freedom, he marched up to the ice-cream stall and said "I want the colourful ice-cream." Later, he happily told me the auntie had said, "Very good, you know what you want!" Within the first week, he had bought French fries, crackers and even a can of 100Plus from the vending machine. This last one, he bought because it was the only drink in a can and he thought it was like Coke (soft drinks are forbidden in our home). He was so short he even had to enlist his buddy's help to put in the coins for him. I'm not sorry to admit that I laughed mercilessly at him when he told me it tasted funny.

So I will say this, if your kid is a greedy gut like mine, nothing will stop him from getting his snacks. Not being able to count money is but a minor inconvenience.

IQ vs achievement - it's not the same thing!

Before I write this, I just want to say that in case any parent reads my previous post and thinks that I'm trying to brag about my gifted child or elicit sympathy for what is often perceived as already a privileged position, that it is not so. I've mentioned this before, every child is different, you just have to work with what you're given. And anyway, a gifted child is not any reflection of a parent's "accomplishment", so there's nothing to take credit for.

Ok, now that we've gotten that out of the way, this is a follow-up post on my last entry. Some parents may be curious as to what are the different levels of giftedness. Here is the range (please note that the numbers can vary depending on the scale that's used).


Average IQ is between 85-114.

I wrote in an earlier post about how to tell if your child is intellectually gifted. An example of a profoundly gifted individual is Bobby Fischer, whose IQ is estimated to be 180. He was obsessed with chess since the age of six and spent hours everyday studying the game. By 15, he became a Grand Master, the youngest ever in history.

But IQ is just a number. And it's important to always remember that life is so much more than numbers. Giftedness is complex because the variation is so wide. A child can be extremely gifted in maths and not languages or vice versa.

The issue I want to address is that of IQ vs achievement. A mother reminded me the other day that it's not the same thing, ie higher IQ does NOT automatically translate into higher achievement. I briefly addressed it in my previous post but I think it warrants a separate post.

People tend to imagine gifted children happily embracing their abilities and continuously adding to their accomplishments. You might therefore be surprised to hear this: research has shown that a large proportion of highly gifted children seriously underachieve in the regular classroom and that by the end of elementary school, many have almost completely lost the motivation to excel (Pringle, 1970; Painter, 1976; Whitmore, 1980; Gross, 1993).

Aside: I found most of the relevant information and research on the Hoagies Gifted Education site. It's a terrific resource although I personally found the navigation a little confusing.

Research by Miraca Gross found that gifted children are aware from a young age that they are different from other children around them. Instead of feeling superior however, more often than not, gifted children feel uncomfortable about being different and feel the pressure to change their behavior to fit in with their peers. Gross's study (1993) found that highly gifted students with advanced reading abilities, on entering school and realising that no other children could read, deliberately decreased the quality and quantity of their reading after a few weeks. Some even stopped reading altogether.

Anxiety and depression often occur in misplaced gifted children. Self-sabotage or deliberate underachievement to fit in can lead to the "imposter syndrome", where gifted adults believe their success is due to luck rather than their own abilities and worry about being found out.

"The “imposter syndrome” strikes people everywhere, especially high achievers... The more successful you get, the greater the inner stress. Now people have expectations of you that you may not be able to meet. Now each decision you make should be perfect because there’s much to lose." - Simran Bhargava, The Imposter Syndrome: Feeling Like A Fraud

One of the biggest issues is the discrepancy between the mental age and the chronological age. The higher the IQ, the higher the mental age, therefore with exceptionally or profoundly gifted children, the gap between the mental and chronological age is enormous.

“Precocity unavoidably complicates the complexity of social adjustment. The child of 8 years with a mentality of 12 or 14 is faced with a situation that is almost inconceivably difficult. In order to adjust normally, such a child has to have an exceptionally well-balanced personality, and has to be well nigh a social genius. The higher the IQ, the more acute the problem” - Burks, Jensen, & Terman

Sometimes, underachievement could simply be due to boredom due to lack of interest in too-easy classes, the negative connotation of being seen as smart ("geek"! "nerd"! sounds familiar?), or unrealistic perfectionism.

While these are social or emotional reasons, there's also the possibility of biological reasons for underachievement. Many gifted children are twice exceptional, ie children who are gifted and have a learning disability like ADHD or dyslexia. Twice exceptional children are especially common among the exceptionally or profoundly gifted. Because gifted children are more able to compensate or mask their learning disabilities, these disorders often are left undiagnosed or discovered much later.

Experts generally agree that an effective way of reversing underachievement in gifted children is to provide accelerated education and placed in intellectually stimulating classes with appropriate mentoring and enrichment. Gross's study found that gifted children who attended school in the regular classroom had frequently quashed or moderated their own abilities. Their early curiosity and love of learning were eroded or completely eradicated by the time they became teenagers, and they displayed disturbingly low levels of motivation and social self-esteem. Ironically, education administrators took the decrease in academic achievement to mean that the child has "leveled out" and is no longer gifted.

In contrast, gifted children who were more appropriately placed in an accelerated environment displayed higher levels of motivation and self-esteem, and significantly reduced pressure to underachieve for peer acceptance. They also had more friends and enjoyed closer social relationships than before the acceleration.

See? Not that I want to keep harping on the GEP but this research again supports my view that the GEP is a necessary part of our education system. It is not the be all and end all, but it does serve the needs of a segment of the population that would otherwise have been underserved in the current education system.