The same is true of every other aspect of human capacity, intellectual abilities included.

We are not all equally capable.

Fairness comes from knowing this, knowing that each person is somewhat different, and working to enable the best outcomes for all.

To speak to this, imagine if a teacher explained an aspect of math to a student; multiplication perhaps. In this case, the student does not understand.

Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same?

Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher?

>Would you feel it sensible for the teacher to explain again, without deviation, without changing the lesson, precisely as before, because it worked for others? And because we are all essentially the same?

>Or would you consider that an inept, cruel teacher?

It depends. If there are 29 other students in the class that got it just fine and the one is struggling, then I would think that the teacher would have to make a judgment about how much time to spend on that one student. Or maybe that one student needs to be in a different class with more one-on-one for a particular subject.

I am all about new pedagogy research, but over the last few thousand years, we know a few things that do tend to work for most people.

What a valid statement, you're missing my point. In the scenario I listed above, the teacher is already re-explaining the lesson again, to that specific student.

So if you read my statements in that context, the difference is -- when already repeating the lesson individually, does the teacher say precisely the same thing, word for word, or does the teacher try to explain it in a new way?