[xenocyon]

Another way to drill down into the question is to start with smart kids and then, if people more or less agree with that, to talk about all kids.

Think about it: if smart kids benefit from a more personalized, stimulating, and nurturing approach to education, then this is even more true for the kids who are less intelligent. Why do we assume that the kids who are academically behind are well served by an apathetic, inflexible, impersonal system?

For example, consider very small classes taught by highly trained, highly motivated, highly paid teachers - but instead of having this be the solution for an elite cohort of "smart" kids, let this be the solution for all kids.

[oldsecondhand]

> Why do we assume that the kids who are academically behind are well served by an apathetic, inflexible, impersonal system?

We don't assume that, society just isn't willing to pay for more expensive more personalized education for the masses.

[ZephyrBlu]

> then this is even more true for the kids who are less intelligent

Disagree. Kids who are smarter can take better advantage of improved education. I think diminishing returns would quickly kick in for most kids.