Only if you assume that having learn as fast as they are able to is a goal in education policy. In fact, it is not. Having some kids ahead of the others is not a desirable outcome of public education as it actually exists. Instead, it operates under assumption that all kids are interchangeable tabula rasas, and if some kids are ahead, that only means that the education is under serving those who are behind them.
As a result, great amounts of efforts are spent to get these slower kids to the pace of faster kids. It never actually has any non-superficial effect. If it seems to, it’s almost universally some more or less apparent selection bias going on.
This disappoints the educators greatly, especially as they are under pressure to deliver the equal outcomes they promised. The outcome is that more and more resources are spent on the slower kids, at the expense of the faster kids. At this point, parents of the faster kids (who very often are people of means, and this is by no means an accident) remove their kids from public education, and move them to private schools. This is often decried as some kind of moral failing, as if they and their kids owe something to the schools that fail to serve them, and for which they continue to pay anyway, despite not using them.
This is not unforced error, this is the result of the incentives embedded in the education system, which are, in turn, a result of unreasonable expectations put on it. We shouldn’t expect that everyone learn the same amount at school. This is never going to be the case, and is hurting everyone in the system.
> This is never going to be the case, and is hurting everyone in the system.
Yeah, and changing it will cause revolt. It would be going back to saying people "just aren't equal", ie. the idea of nobility. And if there's one guarantee in life: it very quickly won't be actual achievement that determines if you get ahead in such a system.
As a result, great amounts of efforts are spent to get these slower kids to the pace of faster kids. It never actually has any non-superficial effect. If it seems to, it’s almost universally some more or less apparent selection bias going on.
This disappoints the educators greatly, especially as they are under pressure to deliver the equal outcomes they promised. The outcome is that more and more resources are spent on the slower kids, at the expense of the faster kids. At this point, parents of the faster kids (who very often are people of means, and this is by no means an accident) remove their kids from public education, and move them to private schools. This is often decried as some kind of moral failing, as if they and their kids owe something to the schools that fail to serve them, and for which they continue to pay anyway, despite not using them.
This is not unforced error, this is the result of the incentives embedded in the education system, which are, in turn, a result of unreasonable expectations put on it. We shouldn’t expect that everyone learn the same amount at school. This is never going to be the case, and is hurting everyone in the system.