> Let’s be real though: one need not invoke resentment-laced arguments about fairness to see that public schools just do not have the resources to properly educate (upper) outliers.

Let's also be real though. This was a conscious policy decision made by school boards across the country.

G&T programs used to be what school's public and private marketed. Now the public schools where I grew up don't even offer AP classes, and a huge portion of their budget now goes to special education.

Why did we decide we have the resources to spend on the lower end of "special" scale but not the upper?

It was the same thing when I was a kid in the 90's and I was bored out of my mind at school, completely and utterly un-challenged. I can barely even put into words how bitter I got about being dragged through such a system. There was no such thing as "advanced" classes, and the only so-called advanced stuff I ever did was outside of school in special programs, which I'm pretty sure my parents had to pay for me to participate in. It was a parent-created/run organization.

Anyway, to answer your query, my belief after decades of observing the education system here (BC, Canada) is, politicians and decision-makers basically feel that smart kids have a huge advantage and they don't need the help. They will succeed and be useful members of society whether we leave them for dead or help them thrive. So... the dollars can be allocated to "those who really need it". I have heard this overall sentiment shared over and over and over, as far back as when my parents and I attended city council meetings appealing for ANY sort of "gifted" program implementation, even a tiny hint of one. The answer was always "find a private school", "I heard there's this virtual school you can attend on the computer", "we'll think about it", etc. I honestly don't see this changing anytime soon.

I could say way more on the subject but didn't feel like posting much more of such a personal topic. Happy to chat about it more with whoever, though.

In California, “we” decided this in 2014, when the state did away with mandatory GATE requirements for districts. It’s now optional, and schools aren’t doing it.

> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything.

If one goes through life expecting people they encounter to care about them, they'll be bitterly disappointed. Some of my teachers were nice to me, and would go out of their way to help if I asked. Did they really care about me? I doubt it. They were just good people. The rest of of my teachers were pretty indifferent. A couple actively disliked me (my own fault).

But what I wanted was not caring, but for them to do their job.

I would say that caring whether or not their students are learning anything is a key part of the job for teachers and principals.

They are well aware of this, which is why they make a great show of caring. But do they really care? The educational results suggest the reality is they don't particularly.

More like welcome to the parents of any child club. School isn't designed to teach, it's designed to be day care. If you want special day care for your special child, it'll cost you, and may or may not be worth it. As it stands, I don't actually recall learning anything in school, or anyone really caring that I did or didn't learn anything, beyond getting me a passing grade of course.

Yeah, it's indoctrination into the 9-5 worker mindset, with a touch of "education" on the side. Parents who are concerned about their kids' all-so-important education being hampered by COVID-related school closures are seriously misled, unless they happen to have the most amazing schools on the continent. Even people I know who work in public education agree it's more daycare than actual education.

I'd definitely argue that the social isolation of not being physically in school would delay some social development, because that's largely what grade school offers imo. It's an environment for rapidly testing and experimenting with interactions between yourself and others, figuring out what works and what doesn't, resolving conflict between you and peers and older adults, forming bonds that will carry maybe into early adult years if not later ones. There's a lot of value in that, but I don't think genuinely academic learning comes until post-secondary, with the exception actually being any kind of vocational classes where you have a specific domain and framework to practice creating or doing something tangible.