Replies

"No child left behind" is an attempt to raise the bar for all students. We'll see if it works or not.

The problem is that it can only be accomplished by devoting a disproportionate amount of resources to the bottom 20% (who need a lot of individualized attention to make the minimum standards) at the cost of the above-average students (who can be expected to figure things out well enough to make the minimum standards without much assistance)

There are three main philosophies on resource allocation:

Egalitarianism: Give the lowest achievers the most so the gap between low achievers and high-achievers is reduced
Even division: Give everybody the same amount of attention
Investment approach:Give the high-achievers the most resources, on the principle that the future payback to the nation from this investment will be greatest

The US's philosophy during the period of greatest growth and prosperity used to be #3. Somebody who grows up to start a company or make a technological breakthrough pays back the nation's investment in his education in short order, while spending $100K on educating somebody who never winds up making enough to pay significant taxes is a bad investment.

Here is a nice summary of Federal involvement in special education. I believe the reversing of financial priorities is largely a result of court mandates.

"somebody who never winds up making enough to pay significant taxes is a bad investment."

that is so untrue......

fact is, the real substance of a nation is in its masses....

if the masses aren't civic minded and family oriented, you can line 10 Bill Gates's up in a row and it wouldn't mean squat...

as far as education goes, people with special gifts should be nurtured, but not to the point where we have the majority of children leaving school without knowing how to read, or write, or knowing basic history so they can be good citizens...

besides, for truely gifted people, they are like cream, they go to the top no matter what....