Two ways to take this. Is the purpose of school to educate students at maximal effectiveness? Or is it to train them for the real world (i.e. corporate jobs, ma

Two ways to take this. Is the purpose of school to educate students at maximal effectiveness? Or is it to train them for the real world (i.e. corporate jobs, many of which require people to do work below their level of intellectual ability)? If it's the first, then yes, absolutely, because differences in learning speed are substantial and kids are going to get bored in classes catered toward the slowest learners. If it's the second, then no, not really. Why? Because most "real world" jobs involve a slow track where one doesn't get to do the interesting stuff until one has put in time and paid dues. Saying, "I shouldn't have to pay dues because I'm smart and already know how to do more interesting work", in the first 6 months of a job is not a way to succeed. If we want to train obedient, dues-paying workers, we should be putting them in classes that bore them, setting the track speed according to the slower learners in the class, and making them do mountains of repetitive, uninspiring busywork. I would prefer the tracked, "elitist" system from an educational perspective, but the reality is that 95% of "real world" life is conforming to rules and expectations designed according to the least skilled and most untalented people. If the role of school is to make people successful in the workplace, tracking could be argued (though I would disagree with such an argument, on the basis that education has long-term subtle payoffs that mere training does not) to be a disservice to students.