In order to teach everyone the same thing you can only teach as much as the stupidest and least motivated person can grasp.

I don't see how that follows.

everyone is a set which includes anyone.

If all (e.g.) 7th graders must have the same knowledge of math, that knowledge of math cannot exceed the knowledge attainable by the dumbest (read: any) 7th grader. This is tautologically true.

Yes, thanks. That clears it up. You're right. We must teach no one anything otherwise there would be some people that wouldn't be able to understand. That was exactly what I was thinking and your example helped me understand. What you were saying was clearly tautological and I just didn't have the logical training to understand it.

I suppose this is what I get for trying to interact with someone in good faith on the internet.

Your interpretation of what I was saying was clearly adversarial and uncharitable so I just got tired of it. It's entirely possible to have high standards for everyone (including the "stupid") without reducing the quality of the curriculum. But you're not interested in having that discussion because you're grinding some other axe about what you perceive to be the ideological takeover of the educational system.

Then make your case instead of pretending to not understand the statement.

What is your solution to enable high quality curriculum and ensuring uniform success?

I didn't say anything about "uniform success".

>What's the fallacy in teaching everyone the same things? That seems like a good way to equalize life outcomes and give everyone the required skills for succeeding in contemporary society.

What did you mean by equalize life outcomes then?

again, what is your position and proposal?

My position is that kids should be taught math at an earlier age and schools should be properly staffed and funded to ensure positive learning outcomes for all students regardless of their socio-economic background because that will lead to more equal life outcomes.

Then you and TimTheTinker basically agree.

The only noteworthy difference is defining acceptable failure rate, which neither of you did.

What's interesting is that beyond a certain threshold (perhaps around the left-hand normal distribution inflection point), further reducing failure rate ends up also reducing the rate of super-success among students in the same classroom.

There is no way to fail in what I'm proposing because there are no grades. Everyone gets feedback on how to improve and students can receive all the help they need to keep up with the curriculum.

1) What if a student refuses to attend school?

2) Can no student advance until everyone has mastered the material?