All Kids Are Gifted, a Sports Metaphor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Um, PP - perhaps you are confused. Organized sports programs at schools are totally different from P.E.

Um, no, I know the difference. However, do you really think these programs exist for the elite athlete? You would be very wrong. Again, did you grow up in the US?

School sports programs certainly don't exist for every kid. Only a small percentage of kids will make the basketball team, football team, et cetera. They only exist for those with enough athletic ability to qualify. So in a sense, they in fact are exclusive and for the elite athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
School sports programs certainly don't exist for every kid. Only a small percentage of kids will make the basketball team, football team, et cetera. They only exist for those with enough athletic ability to qualify. So in a sense, they in fact are exclusive and for the elite athlete.

Your definition of "elite" must be different from mine.

[Anonymous]

First, you do know that schools charge for admission to these events, sell concessions, etc. All of this contributes to the funds. It is a healthy activity for the stands--as well as the athletes. You need to get out more.

[Anonymous]

By the way, football programs seldom cut. You may not play, but you can usually be on the team. And, coaches are hardly paid for the time they put into the effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or, maybe your kids go to the elite private schools which give scholarships to stellar athletes.

There is no such thing as a "sports scholarship", only merit and arts. There is FA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Or, maybe your kids go to the elite private schools which give scholarships to stellar athletes.

There is no such thing as a "sports scholarship", only merit and arts. There is FA.

Oh, so your kid does go to one of those schools where the paying students don't get to play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way, football programs seldom cut. You may not play, but you can usually be on the team. And, coaches are hardly paid for the time they put into the effort.

Maybe your school doesn't but most do. I can't think of a single school where a majority of students are on the football team. Typically it's just a small percentage, and lots of students don't make the team at all. It is definitely exclusionary in most schools. Many schools are highly competetive in sports and hold a high bar to qualify to participate in any way at all.

Also, I think you underestimate the costs - sports facilities cost a not insignificant amount of money to build and maintain, there are lights, sprinkler systems, fertilizer and turfgrass management, mowing, et cetera - or alternately, a not-insignificant cost associated with indoor facilities. In DC many outdoor facilities are provided by DC Parks and Recreation but for the schools to use, so the figure is hidden from the schools budget and it's not really selling a couple of hotdogs and bags of chips that's paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, football programs seldom cut. You may not play, but you can usually be on the team. And, coaches are hardly paid for the time they put into the effort.

Maybe your school doesn't but most do. I can't think of a single school where a majority of students are on the football team. Typically it's just a small percentage, and lots of students don't make the team at all. It is definitely exclusionary in most schools. Many schools are highly competetive in sports and hold a high bar to qualify to participate in any way at all.
Also, I think you underestimate the costs - sports facilities cost a not insignificant amount of money to build and maintain, there are lights, sprinkler systems, fertilizer and turfgrass management, mowing, et cetera - or alternately, a not-insignificant cost associated with indoor facilities. In DC many outdoor facilities are provided by DC Parks and Recreation but for the schools to use, so the figure is hidden from the schools budget and it's not really selling a couple of hotdogs and bags of chips that's paying for it.

Are we talking about high school or college here? Many of the high school football programs around here do not cut and place kids on varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen teams. If you are willing to practice every day even though you may not play, you can be on the team. High school cross country and track teams tend to be like this, too. Lots of average athletes and even some kids who don't start out as athletic at all, but practice and work hard and improve. Kids can not only improve their physical fitness but learn a lot about teamwork and leadership by participating in athletics in high school. Athletic programs are very much worth the tax dollars for the benefits provided to the kids who choose to participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Or, maybe your kids go to the elite private schools which give scholarships to stellar athletes.

There is no such thing as a "sports scholarship", only merit and arts. There is FA.

Oh, so your kid does go to one of those schools where the paying students don't get to play.

No my oldest son played and we paid. My other son has a merit scholarship and did robotics, STEM and did a play or two, as well as freshman and JV sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, football programs seldom cut. You may not play, but you can usually be on the team. And, coaches are hardly paid for the time they put into the effort.

Maybe your school doesn't but most do. I can't think of a single school where a majority of students are on the football team. Typically it's just a small percentage, and lots of students don't make the team at all. It is definitely exclusionary in most schools. Many schools are highly competetive in sports and hold a high bar to qualify to participate in any way at all.
Also, I think you underestimate the costs - sports facilities cost a not insignificant amount of money to build and maintain, there are lights, sprinkler systems, fertilizer and turfgrass management, mowing, et cetera - or alternately, a not-insignificant cost associated with indoor facilities. In DC many outdoor facilities are provided by DC Parks and Recreation but for the schools to use, so the figure is hidden from the schools budget and it's not really selling a couple of hotdogs and bags of chips that's paying for it.

Are we talking about high school or college here? Many of the high school football programs around here do not cut and place kids on varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen teams. If you are willing to practice every day even though you may not play, you can be on the team. High school cross country and track teams tend to be like this, too. Lots of average athletes and even some kids who don't start out as athletic at all, but practice and work hard and improve. Kids can not only improve their physical fitness but learn a lot about teamwork and leadership by participating in athletics in high school. Athletic programs are very much worth the tax dollars for the benefits provided to the kids who choose to participate.

I see. Sooo....

Having kids run around on a field, crashing into each other and getting traumatic brain injuries is worth taxpayer dollars but cultivating bright kids who might be the ones to cure cancer, solve world hunger or find a solution to provide cheap abundant energy is not worth the investment?

I guess we will never agree on priorities.

[Anonymous]

All the high schools I know in FCPS are highly selective for sports other than track and maybe one or two other sports. Even kids playing travel sports don't always make the cuts. Where are these non-competitive high schools? Can my mediocre son play baseball for them?

[Anonymous]

All the high schools I know in FCPS are highly selective for sports other than track and maybe one or two other sports. Even kids playing travel sports don't always make the cuts. Where are these non-competitive high schools? Can my mediocre son play baseball for them?

Check out the football team. The rosters are pretty big. I agree that baseball and basketball are tough to make.

[Anonymous]

The athletics are part of high school activities. Do you think we would have marching band without football?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we talking about high school or college here? Many of the high school football programs around here do not cut and place kids on varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen teams. If you are willing to practice every day even though you may not play, you can be on the team. High school cross country and track teams tend to be like this, too. Lots of average athletes and even some kids who don't start out as athletic at all, but practice and work hard and improve. Kids can not only improve their physical fitness but learn a lot about teamwork and leadership by participating in athletics in high school. Athletic programs are very much worth the tax dollars for the benefits provided to the kids who choose to participate.

I see. Sooo....

Having kids run around on a field, crashing into each other and getting traumatic brain injuries is worth taxpayer dollars but cultivating bright kids who might be the ones to cure cancer, solve world hunger or find a solution to provide cheap abundant energy is not worth the investment?

I guess we will never agree on priorities.

It's a good thing that the PP didn't actually say that.

And, speaking for myself -- I have no problem with education for the gifted, in principle. I have a big problem with the parents who are proponents of gifted education and whose rhetoric consists of:

1. All those other kids get stuff; how come my kid doesn't?
2. Gifted kids contribute more to society than non-gifted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we talking about high school or college here? Many of the high school football programs around here do not cut and place kids on varsity, junior varsity, and freshmen teams. If you are willing to practice every day even though you may not play, you can be on the team. High school cross country and track teams tend to be like this, too. Lots of average athletes and even some kids who don't start out as athletic at all, but practice and work hard and improve. Kids can not only improve their physical fitness but learn a lot about teamwork and leadership by participating in athletics in high school. Athletic programs are very much worth the tax dollars for the benefits provided to the kids who choose to participate.

I see. Sooo....

Having kids run around on a field, crashing into each other and getting traumatic brain injuries is worth taxpayer dollars but cultivating bright kids who might be the ones to cure cancer, solve world hunger or find a solution to provide cheap abundant energy is not worth the investment?

I guess we will never agree on priorities.

It's a good thing that the PP didn't actually say that.

And, speaking for myself -- I have no problem with education for the gifted, in principle. I have a big problem with the parents who are proponents of gifted education and whose rhetoric consists of:

1. All those other kids get stuff; how come my kid doesn't?
2. Gifted kids contribute more to society than non-gifted kids.

Nobody exactly said either of those things, but since you brought them up, let's explore those questions... who thinks sports contributes more to society, given that's how we treat and fund sports as opposed to other programs? Why are sports programs more valuable than G&T? Why should athletes get stuff but other kids don't? And why would anyone "have a problem" with someone asking about those things when there's evidently no problem with the situation being reversed?