> I'm glad we as grown adults are sitting here and judging a child on their dedication to academic rigor.

In a conversation about academic performance, what were you expecting?

I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know: in a conversation about resources being poured into academic outcomes, why is a child's athletic ability, or artistic ability, etc relevant?

We are comparing outcomes of investment into academic performance - do you expect this conversation about ROI to be completely without judgements?

We're talking about changing the entire trajectory of someone's life when they're a child because they find school boring when they're 8 years old. Talking about ROI and hard numbers about this makes your look like a ghoul. I think aggregate measures over years are required to accurately measure the impact educational investment, but we should pay teachers more and hire more of them to reduce class size because we have a moral obligation to do so, not just because we'd get an ROI.

> We're talking about changing the entire trajectory of someone's life when they're a child because they find school boring when they're 8 years old.

Maybe you are. We are not. No one is suggesting decreasing the resources made available to a cohort of children. We're suggesting increasing the resources for gifted children within that cohort.

> Talking about ROI and hard numbers about this makes your look like a ghoul.

How else are you going to discuss what is obviously a very important investment into humanity? Personal attacks, maybe?