This issue is where it gets the most complicated for me. I absolutely agree with you that everyone is not of equal aptitude. There are smart kids and less-than-smart kids; athletic kids and those with two left feet. I get that, and agree with it; anyone who doesn't is fooling themselves.
Where I believe we differ in opinion is that kids should be treated differently--especially at a young age--because of this inequality. Different skills develop over time, and although certainly we should have Advanced Placement programs for those in high school, when talking about grade-schoolers, I think that we should let skill first manifest.
Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers had a pretty big impact in my formulation of this opinion: small advantages, over time, turn into huge ones. What seems like a minor issue at first can, through the course of a decade, become many times compounded. This is why the Dutch school system does not separate children into "advanced" and "slow" classes until they are at least ten years old (forgive me if I'm misquoting the text).
Getting a low score on a test, or needing to study for twelve hours instead of six to get an A+, should not limit a child from being able to reach for academic excellence. In the same token, however--and this is where I think many schools fail--the smartest children should not be held back by the less clever ones.
So, in my opinion, if it helps foster learning to build robots and rockets, then all children should. If it's a cool part of an Advanced Placement class that also requires significant knowledge of an advanced subject, sure, keep it for the "smart kids." Let's just not condemn a child to failure because of a bad test, or a bad school year when they're young.
Where I believe we differ in opinion is that kids should be treated differently--especially at a young age--because of this inequality. Different skills develop over time, and although certainly we should have Advanced Placement programs for those in high school, when talking about grade-schoolers, I think that we should let skill first manifest.
Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers had a pretty big impact in my formulation of this opinion: small advantages, over time, turn into huge ones. What seems like a minor issue at first can, through the course of a decade, become many times compounded. This is why the Dutch school system does not separate children into "advanced" and "slow" classes until they are at least ten years old (forgive me if I'm misquoting the text).
Getting a low score on a test, or needing to study for twelve hours instead of six to get an A+, should not limit a child from being able to reach for academic excellence. In the same token, however--and this is where I think many schools fail--the smartest children should not be held back by the less clever ones.
So, in my opinion, if it helps foster learning to build robots and rockets, then all children should. If it's a cool part of an Advanced Placement class that also requires significant knowledge of an advanced subject, sure, keep it for the "smart kids." Let's just not condemn a child to failure because of a bad test, or a bad school year when they're young.