> to the point where we assume that all children learn the same and if one has a different route to learning he's dull or disabled or disadvantaged
That's why you would have different tiers. To help each student as much as you can at his or her own level. "Lower" tiers focus more on practical and artistic matters, while "Upper" tiers focus more on theoretical and intellectual matters. Note that countries that have such a system generally refer to it as columns, not tiers, because that name does not do it any justice.
It doesn't really solve the major educational problems (e.g. parents), but it does help to take the diversity of children into account.
Whoa, whoa. You're lumping practical and artistic? Methinks you don't have a clue what art is, because it's way way up in the theoretical.
My point is that students don't have levels. When I was in middle school, I was somewhat brilliant at math. (Not honking my own horn, but it's true: I was a beast.) I could handle pretty much anything that required formulas and logic and calculation. Once I got to high school, I had a slew of shitty math teachers, and an incredible English/humanities department, and so I shifted focus and found where I was happiest anyway. While I can handle left-brained stuff, I really shine when I'm dealing with hazier, foggier stuff and giving it meaning.
One is not better than the other. I have friends who are way over on one side who are just as bright as I am. My cofounder, for instance, is a massive Linux geek who is completely at home messing with code and fixing it up. The stuff that I do primarily online, design, he treats as a hobby. I treat learning to code as a hobby, meanwhile, while that's what he's studying. I'd never presume to call my job more important than his is, and vice versa. People are different. It's okay to like completely different things. It doesn't make you lower or higher in any way.
For most things in highschool determination is far more important than talent. Still there are levels of skill in highschool.
For example my little sister (18) is an artist who just got into Cal Art's Animation program not though grades rather she built an awsome portfolio. This summer rather than getting a minium wage job she held an art show and made more than minium wage doing what she loved. Yet, she was also the validictorion of her highschool, and took 7 AP test's getting a 5 on each of them.
Suggesting she has as much drive and talent as a normal highschool student is just stupid.
I'm suggesting that ranking high school students by any metric, drive and talent included, is stupid. In my senior year in high school I published a novel, so I'm aware of how drive and talent varies. At the same time, even driven people like myself and your sister suffer when a school system focuses on regimenting and ranking their students. We'd thrive on freedom as much as any other kid.
That's why you would have different tiers. To help each student as much as you can at his or her own level. "Lower" tiers focus more on practical and artistic matters, while "Upper" tiers focus more on theoretical and intellectual matters. Note that countries that have such a system generally refer to it as columns, not tiers, because that name does not do it any justice.
It doesn't really solve the major educational problems (e.g. parents), but it does help to take the diversity of children into account.