H Schinske wrote in :

[snip]
My cynical thinking on this is that the math talents are less ignore-able
than the reading. For one thing, kids who read at a high level don't
always read at their highest level -- I read plenty of Ruth Chew (easy
readers, but very well-written and good stories) at the same time as I was
reading William Mayne or Elizabeth Enright or Frances Hodgson Burnett, or
for that matter dipping into Dickens and Charlotte Bronte. For another,
lots of people think of all "children's books" (that aren't obviously easy
readers, nor yet big thick things with small print) at about the same
level. They have NO CLUE how much harder _Tom Sawyer_ is than _The Bobbsey
Twins_. Furthermore, you get the "oh, s/he may enjoy it, but s/he doesn't
REALLY UNDERSTAND what s/he's reading, does s/he?"
[snip]

To some extent, I think it may also be because reading is 'fun' and doing
maths workbooks is 'not fun'. So the 9yo who is reading, is doing something
normal, even if chosing Lord of the Rings is unusual.

The kid who is doing high-level maths is doing something unusual - imagine
doing maths problems for fun? - and hence what they are doing is more
likely to be scrutenised closely.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three