Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because you cannot market and sell the gifted student. You can make an athlete perform like a circus animal though. That keeps people emptying their pockets. Remember, the rich do not have scruples, just a love for money.
High school sports generally do not make money. The big beef about them is that they cost the school money. In my district, they try for a break-even. The kids pay a sports fee, tickets are sold for the contests.
While the redshirting may be 3.5-5.5% total, it is not even dispersed. Redshirting (and you can find this in any link on the subject) is far more prominent in affluent kids with college educated parents, so it's classrooms of kids with those demographics who may have large numbers of red-shirts. It's also more commonly done to males, so maybe 25% is high. I'll revise that to about 15-20%. Poor parents do not typically redshirt, because they can't easily afford another year of preschool/day care.
That's what I've seen too. Boys of wealthy parents were all older than their classmates. They had an (unfair) advantage in sports and in academics, because they were a little older.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,073 posts, read 7,511,991 times
Reputation: 9798
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
That's what I've seen too. Boys of wealthy parents were all older than their classmates. They had an (unfair) advantage in sports and in academics, because they were a little older.
these "wealthy older parents" also got another year to accumulate $$ for college .
We lost a year to accumulate because DS was accelerated . However, we lost considerable amount of financial aid because FAFSA is designed to look at junior year of HS. In combination, sorta didn't make much difference because we eventually used loans and invested the college fund instead of using it for college.
Of the people on this thread who are disagreeing about high achieving students being mistreated (which is basically everybody here except tnff and I): how many of you were actual high achieving students (or the parent of one) who were actually treated properly by teachers, administrators, and peers? And how many of you were just viewing it from the outside?
In my area, the only school I know of where high achieving students are looked up to is in a college town. That may be because that is one of the very few school districts where the students' parents make their money through their academic credentials. I think that at least 2 of the posters who are disagreeing with me here may live and/or teach in a college town.
In the United States we overwhelmingly group students by age, and what you're describing isn't all that common, so this is a bit of a red herring. Regardless, it sounds like you're trying to justify denying educational equity to some students in favor of providing more support to others, which simply is not right. For whatever the reason that students may be more or less ready for a topic or a class, all students have the right to be pushed to reach their potential.
However if you're arguing that age-based grouping is outdated, I'd agree, and I think we'd be better off grouping students within age bands and more so based on the learning they're ready for and capable of doing.
What would you do about somebody (such as myself) who was academically ahead of my peers, but socially behind my peers? Or what about somebody who is strong in one area but weak in another area?
Of the people on this thread who are disagreeing about high achieving students being mistreated (which is basically everybody here except tnff and I): how many of you were actual high achieving students (or the parent of one) who were actually treated properly by teachers, administrators, and peers? And how many of you were just viewing it from the outside?
In my area, the only school I know of where high achieving students are looked up to is in a college town. That may be because that is one of the very few school districts where the students' parents make their money through their academic credentials. I think that at least 2 of the posters who are disagreeing with me here may live and/or teach in a college town.
I was a good student, top 10 percent as were my kids. We were all treated "properly", whatever that means. I mean, my kids nor I were harrassed, etc, for being intelligent. As I said, intelligence was valued at my kids' school, and I guess I could say at mine too, though Joe Namath went there as well. Maybe you could say they did well in both realms. My husband was one of those superachievers, 6th in a class of over 600 in Nebraska mind you where of course they only care about football players and have never heard of lacrosse. He was actually recruited by Caltech. When we went to his 40 year reunion everyone was still talking about what s brain he was, to his embarrassment I might add. Gale Sayers went to his HS, so I guess they did well in both realms.
ETA: DH was also recruited by the University of Nebraska, but not for football! He did play football freshman year in HS and intramural for Caltech.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 07-16-2018 at 11:30 PM..
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,073 posts, read 7,511,991 times
Reputation: 9798
@mitsguy.
DS is an easy guy to work with. Go with the flow. Teachers loved him because he was witty. He did IB and spent more time in reading and crafting his words than actual studying. This is the real payoff-being able to articulate a concept-ie English. We are not teachers or in a college town and very average. He has the natural gift of speed reading with comprehension.
Of the people on this thread who are disagreeing about high achieving students being mistreated (which is basically everybody here except tnff and I): how many of you were actual high achieving students (or the parent of one) who were actually treated properly by teachers, administrators, and peers? And how many of you were just viewing it from the outside?
In my area, the only school I know of where high achieving students are looked up to is in a college town. That may be because that is one of the very few school districts where the students' parents make their money through their academic credentials. I think that at least 2 of the posters who are disagreeing with me here may live and/or teach in a college town.
I would say that overall my kids were treated well by teachers. There were a few isolated incidents, mostly related to teachers who believe that all jocks are dumb who questioned their presence in their advanced high school class. There were also a few teachers who saw athletic participation for high academic achievers to be a waste of time. However, most of the time they were treated appropriately by teachers. These teachers are notable because most of the teachers admired kids who could give lots of time to an activity and still maintain high levels of academic achievement.
Coaches universally supported academic achievement. My kids played four different sports in high school (football, wrestling, lacrosse, weightlifting) and support for high achievers was high across all of them.
My oldest and youngest were both highly academic students as well as good athletes. They both graduated in the top 5% of their high school class (school doesn't rank but gives percentages), took 10-15 AP classes, scored high on all of them, had high ACT scores, participated in academic extracurriculars in addition to sports (Model UN, Literary Magazine).
My middle son was a good student, but not as high as his brothers.. He graduate in the top 25% of his class, took 8 AP classes and did well in 7 of them. He scored very highly on his ACT, played lacrosse, did marching band and won many music awards. He did well in high school (no serious struggles) but was not as high achieving as his brothers. He graduated from college in 4 years with no struggles.
My oldest graduated from a great university with a double major in 3.5 years. He played football all 4 years and was a captain and all conference player. He was an officer of his fraternity, had a GPA above 3,7, worked as a TA for the economics department, and is currently working.
My youngest just completed his freshman year. He got good grades (mostly As with a few A-s), played lacrosse, and worked for the athletic department last year. Over the summer he worked for one of his professors who needed a research assistant to help him develop a new course. He is also an intern for our Senator.
We are not in a college town. The kids went to a private, college prep school
Of the people on this thread who are disagreeing about high achieving students being mistreated (which is basically everybody here except tnff and I): how many of you were actual high achieving students (or the parent of one) who were actually treated properly by teachers, administrators, and peers? And how many of you were just viewing it from the outside?
In my area, the only school I know of where high achieving students are looked up to is in a college town. That may be because that is one of the very few school districts where the students' parents make their money through their academic credentials. I think that at least 2 of the posters who are disagreeing with me here may live and/or teach in a college town.
To be a general high-achieving "bright" student to me seems like something of the golden circle, at least these days (not so much when I was a kid). However, being gifted is not necessarily the same as being high-achieving. Gifted kids are often highly asychronous -- that is, their academics might be far ahead of their age group, in one or several areas, but other things like motor skills or emotional maturity or other aspects might be behind. This is a challenge for teachers and other classmates, not to mention the kids themselves. They might be accelerated years beyond their age level (but not often or even regularly due to differences in district and state policy). Gifted kids often challenge teachers, have a tendency to think outside the box, question the test rather than study for it. This also does not tend to endear them to teachers (except for certain exceptions who are exemplary of wonderful, life-changing teachers). Gifted kids tend to question Santa Claus and other elementary school beliefs more far before other kids have thought about it, tend to understand death and its significance before other kids their age, openly question religious beliefs, and have tendencies to slip toward existential depression. This, also, does not exactly lead one to be the kid some teachers and many parents seek to have other kids hang out with. It's a unique challenge that's rarely understood. I think the best "circle" to be in would be to be a top achiever, in the top whatever % of one's class, to be able to get along well with the teacher and make his/her job easier, and have other teachers and parents have kids want to hang out with you. That is a bright kid, but often not a gifted one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
. However, we lost considerable amount of financial aid because FAFSA is designed to look at junior year of HS
. In combination, sorta didn't make much difference because we eventually used loans and invested the college fund instead of using it for college
.
