[sh1mmer]

The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.

It is probable that children with learning disabilities will always need more care (and hence money). I think the real issue is that we are falling short of stimulating our brightest children. That doesn't justify taking from children with specific needs for support.

[alan-crowe]

> The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.

That kind of impractical, feel-good sloganising stifles democracy.

How are people supposed to respond? They know that generally people takes a more hard headed approach to issues that directly effect them and the sloganiser is probably being hypocritical. But complaining about the hypocrisy is to derail the discussion; switching from how resources are alocated within education to quarrelling about how one participant organises his private life ruins the debate.

One might try to argue in a loop, saying that allocation based on talent will expand the economy eventally allowing more needs to be met. But the slogan is a feel good slogan. If you are backed into arguing against a feel-good slogan you have to take the role of feel-bad guy in the discussion and that really does feel bad because you are pretty damn sure it is just a slogan: the other guy is probably pretty ruthless in his private life (just look at his debating tactics).

But why have this discussion at all? If you have a job and a family you don't actually have time to waste on a "from each according to his ability, to each according to he need" neo-Marxist bun fight. You want to have a adult discussion about educational priorities. So when some-one kicks off the bunfight with "allocation based on need." you are effectively disenfranchised.

[anamax]

> It is probable that children with learning disabilities will always need more care (and hence money). I think the real issue is that we are falling short of stimulating our brightest children. That doesn't justify taking from children with specific needs for support.

Okay - so where are you going to get the money?

In the short term, the size of the pie is fixed. In the long term, it isn't.

It may be that spending a greater percentage of resources on "smart kids" will produce enough more wealth that there will be more resources to spend on "not so smart" kids. Or not.

This isn't a question that can be answered with platitudes.

[tokenadult]

The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.

Is it possible to acknowledge that all learners need fitting education?