It might be the case that the techniques, etc. being taught to failing students were already known to the not-failing ones, so in that case, there would be dimi

It might be the case that the techniques, etc. being taught to failing students were already known to the not-failing ones, so in that case, there would be diminishing returns to having the students who were already doing better do the same things. It is an interesting question though: should we be more concerned with having everyone reach some uniform level of performance, or is it worth investing more resources in the “best and brightest” students, even though they’re already ahead of everyone else? I think it’s important for public schools at the K–12 level to provide resources for above-average students, which shouldn’t be that difficult except for political questions like how to motivate schools to focus on this, and how to justify spending resources on students who are already going to pass the standardized tests.