[TimTheTinker]

If you teach "hard" things to average US public school students, a minority of them will excel as a result. The rest will nod off, get bored, not pay attention, and not benefit.

So it benefits a minority (those who care) and differentiates them from the rest -- that's what they don't like. Because those who care come from "privileged" backgrounds more often than not, thus perpetuating the gap between privileged and non-privileged.

[holonomically]

I still don't follow. What exactly in what I suggested is the problem with equalizing outcomes? If everyone is learning the same things then what exactly is the problem? There is no discrimination involved.

[TimTheTinker]

"Equalizing outcomes" is exactly what they want to do.

They seek to accomplish this by pulling down those who would otherwise excel, not by solving the real problems that are preventing people from excelling in the first place.

Part of the problem is that outcomes can never be equalized. It's a fallacy to try to force everyone into the same educational mold. A statistical normal distribution will always occur.

Better to remove impediments that are keeping people from excelling -- things like poverty, crime, etc. would be a great place to start.

[holonomically]

What's the fallacy in teaching everyone the same things? That seems like a good way to equalize life outcomes and give everyone the required skills for succeeding in contemporary society.

[thereisnospork]

In order to teach everyone the same thing you can only teach as much as the stupidest and least motivated person can grasp.

[holonomically]

I don't see how that follows.

[thereisnospork]

everyone is a set which includes anyone.

If all (e.g.) 7th graders must have the same knowledge of math, that knowledge of math cannot exceed the knowledge attainable by the dumbest (read: any) 7th grader. This is tautologically true.