> How many resources should they apply to the top 2% of children?
Resources spend on the cleverest kids will probably provide a bigger return on investmant than for other kids, so about 5%
Yes. If they don't, who should? The parents? Many parents are completely useless (or worse); should we just write off their children?
The point is that I'd be content if government served the general case of population well. Super-bright kids are a special case there will be less harm to society should they be under-developed.
I know that's horribly utilitarian of me but I'm just being pragmatic.
How many resources should they apply to the top 2% of children?