It's not necessarily wrong to teach to population averages. It sounds like you're suggesting that education effort/money should be distributed with an emphasis

It's not necessarily wrong to teach to population averages. It sounds like you're suggesting that education effort/money should be distributed with an emphasis on high-aptitude students instead of low-aptitude students for long-term growth goals. This makes some sense, it seems likely that empowering high-aptitude students with better education will generate leaders, entrepreneurs, inventors, 10x engineers, and "growth". But if you don't spend the extra money and effort to teach the low-aptitude students, they will not have a usable education, producing a "low aptitude class", likely condemned to poverty, unemployment, and suffering. Growth is great, but suffering is not. Maybe the bureaucracy swings too far towards preventing suffering at the expense of future growth, but it's not a black-and-white wrong.