Additionally - only a tiny percentage of kids who participate in sports will ever have that be their profession - whereas a majority of kids who participate in advanced academics probably WILL go on to fields which benefit from academics.

And, the GenEd kids won"t?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Untrue. They don't single out specific kids and take money away from them. Also, you seem to be forgetting that G&T kids need to be educated regardless.

They get more money than average kids. And, they are NOT Special Education.

Kids who participate in sports get more money and resources diverted to them than average kids and aren't special education either. So what's your point? If you don't think it's reasonable to put money and resources toward G&T then how is it reasonable to put money and resources toward sports?

Additionally - only a tiny percentage of kids who participate in sports will ever have that be their profession - whereas a majority of kids who participate in advanced academics probably WILL go on to fields which benefit from academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because athletic excellence is obvious and can be physically measured. Intelligence is more difficult to quantify and prove sometimes. Some people who do not have high IQs are able to pretend to be very smart. And others who have high IQs can sometimes seem not as bright.

It can be quantified through a combination of things like WISC tests, academic achievement, et cetera - often observant teachers will know and recognize which students stand out academically. It can probably be quantified far more effectively than athletics.

But many tests are thought to be SES biased. Which is different than having two students start at the same starting line and see who crosses the finish line first.

Back in the day when there were more knowledge- and culture-based questions to introduce bias that was more of a relevant argument but it's far less relevant or valid today than it was 50 years ago when that debate first started.

Also, a footrace isn't necessarily the best test of athleticism. What about kids who are great swimmers but aren't great runners? Or those who excel in other sports but aren't necessarily the fastest runners?

Anonymous wrote:

Untrue. They don't single out specific kids and take money away from them. Also, you seem to be forgetting that G&T kids need to be educated regardless.

They get more money than average kids. And, they are NOT Special Education.

Kids who participate in sports get more money and resources diverted to them than average kids and aren't special education either. So what's your point? If you don't think it's reasonable to put money and resources toward G&T then how is it reasonable to put money and resources toward sports?

One can just as easily come up with plenty of references where "snowflake" used in the racist sense. Besides, your argument is about as senseless as a white person saying the n-word isn't racist and is fine to use because blacks use it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, get over yourself, "snowflake lady". You sound like such an ass every time you post.

Take a chill pill, darling.

1) I'm not a "lady." I don't even have the right chromosomes.
2) The term "snowflake" is used ubiquitously on the Internet to deride those who seem to have an exaggerated and entitled sense of their children's talents and abilities. To suggest I am the only one who uses the term or to confuse the very many others who use it with me is misguided at best. Clearly it touches a nerve, though -- maybe you're one of the "those" parents?

"Ubiquitously?" Not exactly, and certainly not unambiguously as it's also frequently used disparagingly as a racist, anti-white term.

Yes, darling. The use of "snowflake" to describe entitled children with doting parents is ubiquitous. Whatever racist connotations you associate with it have long since been eclipsed by its more modern, Internet meaning.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=precious%20little%20snowflake

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080608130346AAVpuiV

http://www.fark.com/comments/3701877/The-revolt-against-precious-little-snowflake-culture-has-begun

http://www.cafemom.com/group/115189/forums/read/19413997/The_term_Precious_little_Snowflake

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/OliverDelSignore/2012/03/10/being-a-precious-snowflake-means-never-having-to-say-im-sorry/

They even have them in China: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8997627/China-The-rise-of-the-Precious-Snowflakes.html

So, spare me your indignation. Get over yourself. Deal with it.

We have recreational soccer teams for anyone who wants to play. We have travel clubs for those who are better players (and have parents who want to pay). There are athletic options for all kids, but the highest resources go to develop the top kids. Why don't we do the same with education?

The resources for the travel teams come from the parents. Just like the resources for SAT prep and, for the most part, TJ prep come from the parents.

I agree with modt of the sentiments in this thread. We seem able to accept that Mary is a better basketball player than Suzie and so Mary gets the lion's share of the playing time. Suzie's parents might disagree but in the athletic world it is acceptable to say one kid is better than another. It is acceptable to have kids try out for solos, or audition for select ensembles in music. Some kids are not good enough to make the highest level ensemble and that seems to be ok with most people (except maybe the kids who don't make it and their parents).

Yet-when it comes to intelligence we are branded as elitist if we say that one child is smarter than another. It makes no sense that we are willing to accept that the best athletic resources go to the best athletes and the best musical resources go the best musicians but the best academic resources do not go to the smartest kids. It makes no sense at all.

We have recreational soccer teams for anyone who wants to play. We have travel clubs for those who are better players (and have parents who want to pay). There are athletic options for all kids, but the highest resources go to develop the top kids. Why don't we do the same with education?

Don't get me wrong, all kids need an appropriate education. But the best education should go to develop the best minds. We have it backwards. We spend the most money educating the kids who are at the bottom.

I am ready to be slammed for my comments.

Untrue. They don't single out specific kids and take money away from them. Also, you seem to be forgetting that G&T kids need to be educated regardless.

They get more money than average kids. And, they are NOT Special Education.

Anonymous wrote:

1. No one takes money away from children with special learning needs to benefit gifted kids. Special Ed is funded federally by law with lots of money and special accommodations. AAP gets no additional money other than bussing. And truly gifted kids are special needs but receive no money by law.

No. They take the money away from the good average kids.

Untrue. They don't single out specific kids and take money away from them. Also, you seem to be forgetting that G&T kids need to be educated regardless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because athletic excellence is obvious and can be physically measured. Intelligence is more difficult to quantify and prove sometimes. Some people who do not have high IQs are able to pretend to be very smart. And others who have high IQs can sometimes seem not as bright.

It can be quantified through a combination of things like WISC tests, academic achievement, et cetera - often observant teachers will know and recognize which students stand out academically. It can probably be quantified far more effectively than athletics.

But many tests are thought to be SES biased. Which is different than having two students start at the same starting line and see who crosses the finish line first.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because athletic excellence is obvious and can be physically measured. Intelligence is more difficult to quantify and prove sometimes. Some people who do not have high IQs are able to pretend to be very smart. And others who have high IQs can sometimes seem not as bright.

It can be quantified through a combination of things like WISC tests, academic achievement, et cetera - often observant teachers will know and recognize which students stand out academically. It can probably be quantified far more effectively than athletics.

AAP gets no additional money other than bussing.

This is not true in FCPS.

Maybe because athletic excellence is obvious and can be physically measured. Intelligence is more difficult to quantify and prove sometimes. Some people who do not have high IQs are able to pretend to be very smart. And others who have high IQs can sometimes seem not as bright.

1. No one takes money away from children with special learning needs to benefit gifted kids. Special Ed is funded federally by law with lots of money and special accommodations. AAP gets no additional money other than bussing. And truly gifted kids are special needs but receive no money by law.

No. They take the money away from the good average kids.