> The US would concentrate on high performers, often to the detriment of their peers. This is, at best, half true. The high performers might get the most atten

> The US would concentrate on high performers, often to the detriment of their peers. This is, at best, half true. The high performers might get the most attention from certain teachers (esp. in middle class and upper middle class schools), but systemically they are ignored. 1. The general idea in education circles is that the higher performers “will do fine” without any additional attention, so they don’t need much help. As such, very little research attention is focused on them. 2. Gifted education is a joke in the US. Almost completely ignored. 3. Most honors classes are also a joke in that they are often regular classes with more busy work. 4. AP classes are sometimes good, but it’s often easier just to take an actual college course if your school allows it. Same or less classroom time and much less busy work. 5. School administrators are evaluated based on performance metrics. In almost all cases it is more beneficial and often easier to improve the low performers than it is to improve the high performers. This is largely due to the metrics that have been chosen for evaluation. As for Japan, that observation is very true. That said, most of the talent mismatches disappear starting at high school and sometimes junior high school due to tracking (of which I am a fan).