My wife is a Grade One teacher, her primary goals are to help all her students to learn, to love learning, and to enjoy school (and she is extremely good at what she does - her students complain to their parents when they are kept home from school when they are sick). She works hard to challenge the most capable students and help the least capable, but since most of her kids are "average", they are her main focus.

Special needs students get a great deal of resources directed to them by the system, and while I don't begrudge them extra help and attention, it seems that when resources are limited (and I don't think there are too many schools anywhere these days where that isn't the case) that most of those resources should go to giving "average" students the best education possible.

I know there has to be more to it than a simple "cost-benefit analysis" - but society as a whole benefits greatly from having a well educated "average" population (or it would, anyway, if that were to happen). Similarly, society would benefit from having an education system that challenged and supported the brightest students.

The "humanity" of a society benefits from providing for the least-able students, too, but I think the resources put into such programs are disproportionate.

Locally, an autism support group recently won a court case that would require the provincial government to pay $60,000 per year for a special treatment program for autistic kids. While it appears that the program is successful... my wife can't get basic supplies for her class of mostly "average" kids because of budget cuts.