[hueving]

There is no reason we should spend extra effort on kids that have that much difficulty learning or hate school that much. The kid isn't likely to come out that much better in the long run.

There isn't unlimited money for this, by choosing to spend more money on lost causes you are depriving the regular and strong students of money that could be used to enrich their education. If the bulk of effort is focused on the lowest 5% of students to the detriment of the other 95%, then it results in a worse education system overall.

People just aren't comfortable with the fact that some students will just not perform well no matter how many resources you throw at it.

[tluyben2]

> People just aren't comfortable with the fact that some students will just not perform well no matter how many resources you throw at it.

You aren't those 'people' nor are your kids; you would (or will) not be saying that. I'm not one of those people either but I work with these kids and with effort people improve a lot over the educational system. I have seen kids go from failures to successes by putting effort into them and we should strive for that. The elitist view you have is painful to read. I'm not talking about the pure geniuses as they will get the attention they need but neither are you...

[hueving]

Again, we don't have unlimited funds. By focusing so much energy on underperforming students you deprive the majority of resources that could be devoted towards making them better.

Yes, it sucks if you have a child with bad behavior or poor learning skills, but why is society expected to sacrifice their own children to attempt to fix yours?

It's similar to suggesting that all doctors only treat patients in the very worst conditions. A bomb goes off and the hospital spends all of their time on victims with no vital signs and ignores the people bleeding out because they still have vital signs.

I'm sorry my post pains you to read, but if you are getting that emotional about it maybe you aren't viewing things objectively?

[bluGill]

> There is no reason we should spend extra effort on kids that have that much difficulty learning or hate school that much. The kid isn't likely to come out that much better in the long run.

Source needed if you want to make that a fact...

I disagree. While I want to best students to get help to be better (they are the ones who can handled difficult but important fields, and can make the next breakthroughs to make my life better), I also do not want to be supporting the worst students in Prison or Welfare, as both are a drain on society. I'm willing to accept the kids with Downs syndrome (to name just one) will never have the mental capacity to amount to much, the next level up can at least support themselves if we give them help.

Low skill manufacturing jobs are gone and they will not come back. Robots are too cheap (even in places like China or India where labor is much cheaper than the US robots can still out compete humans for some tasks). The only chance those below average kids have is if we give them enough education now that they can handle a the simpler tasks that require a brain.

Science fiction can tackle the problem of what do we do when AI is "smarter" than humans. It is an interesting problem. The reality for the next half lifetime at least is AI will not be able to beat humans in many of the jobs that require an education. Thus I want everyone who could get an education to get one.

[hueving]

I'm not concerned about the brightest students, I'm concerned more about the middle of the bell curve. The US has to compete globally and if we let the majority languish while focusing on the left tail, the population is worse off on average.

This type of decline is hard to get out of because it's a negative feedback loop (poorly educated parents tend to poorly educate their children).