"We also must be realistic about individual competencies and potential."

You hit the nail on the head, hommesuisse. This is the third rail of political philosophy: the problem no one is willing to acknowledge. The fundamental, and false, belief underlying socialism is that we all come into the world as a blank slate, with the same potential, infinitely malleable by our environment. Thus, if someone fails, it is solely because of outside forces: class size or racial composition, racism, sexism, social class, etc.

We do not all come into the world with the same potential. For simplicity's sake, we might divide the population into three segments: the Brights, the Normals, and the Dulls. We need to figure out how to modify the gene pool so society produces more Brights and fewer Dulls. More George Washington Carvers, for example. Take a look at Carver's bio on Wikipedia if you want to marvel at how someone can overcome unbelievable obstacles to become one of the world's greatest scientists.

We need to identify the Brights early and cultivate them like hothouse flowers instead of forcing them into the same classes with the Normals and the Dulls like the socialists are fond of doing.

A professor at a prestigious university (coincidentally one of Dellinger's colleagues) once told his class that it is the students who make the school what it is, not the professors or the facilities. In other words, if we emptied out the students from Harvard and replaced them with students from Amarillo College, we would have just another Amarillo College.

BTW, one of the best classes I took in college was taught in an auditorium to 550 students. I have never understood why class size is so important, but I admit I don't remember much from my primary school education. I don't recall how big my classes were or if that was important to me at the time.