We already have an n-tiered society, partly because not everybody has the same abilities and habits. Even if we were to redistribute all wealth equitably now, soon the same old inequality would reemerge.
The only real solution would be to hit every smart or talented person on the head with a hammer until they were equal with the dumbest person. Crippling the educational opportunities of smart kids is just a half-measure.
Nobody is attempting to create an equal society. The goal is to create a society where the less talented are not living in ghettos and robbing you when you drive by in your BMW.
Everybody should be helped to reach a certain level, otherwise you create a crime ridden society where some people live behind gated communities.
Wealth should never be distributed equally, and your attempting to say that I support that is a distortion of my words. Everyone has to have an equal opportunity, and a minimum of wealth so that he does not starve to death.
And I don't mean 'technically' an equal opportunity, but a real equal opportunity. You know, if I did not live in a country with a free education system, I'd probably be a mechanic or electrician right now. You can't take away my opportunity to be educated, and then say you are better off because you are smarter or more talented.
And speaking of talented - is beauty a talent? Is singing a talent? Is programming skill a talent? Who gets to decide who deserves to have this talent? Some random fluke of nature?
I'm talented in programming, but that sure as hell does not mean that I deserve a better life than some guy who is talented at nothing, but works and struggles every single day. Talent is the lottery, I got my share of this lottery, and some people just did not. I'm not going to spit on them and concentrate only on myself. I believe that every single person should have the opportunity to get further in life.
Hey, I'm as anarcho-syndicalist as the next hipster, but I read your original comment as saying schools need to focus on the lowest common denominator. I'm still kinda getting that vibe from this comment.
Grades are different from money. Yes, society needs to provide a basic standard of living for everyone--but we need to do that in the way that allows the median standard of living to rise as best as it's sustainably able to. Advances in everyone's standard of living don't come from those of us in the bottom 95%, they come from the very best and brightest when their environment challenges them and allows them maximum room for growth.
The incentive structure for many of the most influential people in today's society--lobbied legislators, option-cashing CEOs, income-cutoff-avoiding welfare recipients--is completely screwed. But you don't buy food and housing with grades, and inflating those by pulling down the smartest does nobody much good.
I don't see how creating a school system flexible enough to accommodate diverse abilities and interests would create an evil bias in society. What is so bad about letting parents choose the educational product that is best for their child? We already do this for college.
The only real solution would be to hit every smart or talented person on the head with a hammer until they were equal with the dumbest person. Crippling the educational opportunities of smart kids is just a half-measure.