And I respectfully suggest that this indeed defines our differences. In the name of objectivity, we have become an institution which sorts and selects opportunity under the guise of advanced instruction for the gifted or basic skills for the masses. Further, I respectfully suggest that the belief we can decide which students should be introduced or exposed to the techniques of masters and the intricacies of philosophical discourse in science and the arts does more to contribute to any mediocrity than does equality of opportunity. When accellerated learning or talented and gifted programs are initially suggested, the dialogue quickly turns to access for all students to the best and most engaging instruction. I realize that this is all rhetoric.
Resources are limited.
Teaching skill is just as varied as learning ability. In order to accomplish this, we must come together as communities to insist on instilling aspirations in hearts and minds of all children. We must work with parents who will allow their children to do much less than they can. We must work with businesses and governments to provide educational opportunities throughout life, rather than only between 5 and 22. If we don't provide equally accellerated opportunities across the board, there will be no population capable of doing the tasks which this society needs to survive.