> I don’t think there’s a clear answer, but what we have isn’t it.
The answer is entirely clear but it's uncomfortable.
Society is moved forward by the top percentile, not by even the "average". You can only help those who wish to help themselves, and expending massive resources on kids who are not there to learn (or cannot) has had predictable results.
Some evil folks in history have used this exact strategy of crippling the "top kids" of a group for their genocidal plans. It's highly effective.
The best thing you can do is make sure those "top kids" are identified early and tracked into the proper classes regardless of socioeconomic background. Yes, this means segregating students based on ability earlier than later. Doing this ends up helping those "bottom kids" once they reach adulthood since society is better overall for everyone.
Is it worth it to spend monumental effort trying to get not very bright children to meet some minimum requirement
OR
is it more worth it to just encourage and lift up brighter students.
I don’t think there’s a clear answer, but what we have isn’t it.