> I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation.
The top performers produce pretty much all the progress that is made in a field. From a global progress perspective, it's much more important for the top performers to advance than for the lower ones.
On the other hand for the "everyone needs a job" perspective, and "not all progress is revolutionary, you still need people to do ordinary work" you need the bottom performers to advance.
But this is not a zero sum game (as you imply). You can advance both, it's just not as many politicians care about the top performers. That's because politicians don't care about global progress, they care about bulk numbers: the majority of people need to be happy, and have incomes. And that implies helping the bottom and middle levels.
The highest achievers will always have to fight politics instead of depend on it, since while a top achiever may produce 1000x the societal contribution of an average achiever, he/she will still only have 1 vote.
Consider also: "For each decision, consider the impact on the next seven generations"
If you can thrust up the lowest achievers into a better lifestyle, their children will be even better off. Why should "contribution to society" be limited to top achievers? Why should we be cynical about the ability of a democratic society to make decisions?
SAT performance, and education performance in general, is heavily correlated with socioeconomic class. We should spend more on those who need more. The next generation will be substantially better off. Over time society should become "wealthier," able to help its citizens better as more are able to help themselves and others.
It shows what kids from the lowest socioeconomic class can achieve, given support, encouragement, and an enriched learning environment from an early age.
The kids in Promise Academy's third grade classes (scoring 100% at or above grade level in one school, and 96% at the other), had been intensive preschool since age three.
Read the book Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough for more details of one of the most hope-inspiring stories in education today.
One thing to consider in deciding how much to spend on education for poor students is the effect this will have on welfare and prison costs for the next generation.
The top performers produce pretty much all the progress that is made in a field. From a global progress perspective, it's much more important for the top performers to advance than for the lower ones.
On the other hand for the "everyone needs a job" perspective, and "not all progress is revolutionary, you still need people to do ordinary work" you need the bottom performers to advance.
But this is not a zero sum game (as you imply). You can advance both, it's just not as many politicians care about the top performers. That's because politicians don't care about global progress, they care about bulk numbers: the majority of people need to be happy, and have incomes. And that implies helping the bottom and middle levels.