People with a lower intelligence might feel as if they are not on the same level as their peers therefore causing discomfort between the student bodies. By giving the student with a lower level of intelligence a little bit more attention will allow himself/herself to be on the same page as the others
Intelligence is a rather abstract term. A person that might be considered low intelligence might actually be autistic. Autistic people view the world differently than people that are not autistic, and therefore hold the potential to have new insights about things. A example of this is Temple Grandin, who has demonstrated exceptional capability in animal science.
I believe that the designation of "low intelligence" and "average intelligence" are very vague and difficult to work with, but on average, I believe all students deserve to learn and they deserve to have a proper education. For some students, this may mean more one on one time or more attention. For some students, this may mean self learning or learning on their own.
People are different and each person learns at a different rate. How can someone facing challenges learn as someone that dosen´t? These people need some special attention and a different treatment. Maybe they take a longer time to learn simple stuff, but this is not an excuse for not helping. With a little patience and a different treating, people with low intelligence can learn the same things than other people can.
It is hard and inaccurate to say "more" attention, since not all attention is equal. Most higher skilled students do not require direct attention, they merely need the path shown to them and they will take off on their own, while lower intelligence students may need more "hand holding." You have to determine what type of attention is in each students best interest and do your best to do that for them. It is foolish to try to implement some kind of one size fits all for anything like this. Doing so hurts both the low intelligence AND the high intelligence students.
Also, please don't use someone with Downs Syndrome as the picture when simply referencing "low intelligence."
If someone of average intelligence can do just fine and keep up then why should it matter if someone of low intelligence is given more attention? The whole point of school is to learn so why let everyone else keep progressing and completely ignore the student who's struggling? The goal is to make sure everyone learns what they're being taught. If someone is kept out of the loop and doesn't understand anything then I see that as not very fair to them. People learn at different rates and some people pick up on things a lot quicker. Not everyone works at the same pace, others a little slower. No one should be left behind no matter what.
It requires a bit of an extra effort on the part of the teachers definitely, but it will be worth the effort.
However, there has to be a method to the madness. The teachers can find out through various means whether the child is dull in all the subjects or is the dullness is rather selective due to a lack of interest in the subject. If it's due to the lack of interest, new methods should be devised by the teachers to get across to them and make it more appealing. For children who are overall dull, this extra care will really help them come up the curve and it will also alleviate the feeling of being "less" than someone.
Look. Intelligence is somewhat hereditary, and somewhat trainable. If someone is all around stupid, they are not worth our recourses, and they should be neutered immediately. Then people who are moderately dumb, should be encouraged not to reproduce as much. Smart people should be forced to donate sperm & eggs.
We do this to a point with AP and Honors level classes, depending on the school system and it should be done in a more comprehensive manner. Students scoring above a certain grade point ought to be put in separate classes to foster better attention on their aptitudes and intellect.
As for those who score lower, they ought to be identified and helped. Those who need remedial classes ought to get them and similarly, if they score high in one subject, they should be allowed to take the advanced level course relative to that subject. Those with special needs, mental disabilities, et al, should be given an entirely separate curriculum.
Of course, with Obama's Common Core standards, none of this matters. The DOE now wants the entire nation on one curriculum, regardless of intelligence and aptitude. Effectively, this will make the smartest student as useless as the dumbest student. Hope n Change, indeed.
Every student needs to be taught, a person with low intelligence needs to be taught at their level and those with normal intelligence need to be taught at their level. But there should be no difference in the a out of attention that each group receives. If this will not work then they should go to a special school.
Are you truly helping them? I have classmate who is challenged he has in no way advanced his knowledge or mental ability in the 5 years I have known him "yes I talk to him I sit with him at lunch because most people will not. So do not say I hate or don't try understand him!" He does not take advanced math with me but he has required classes with me and in those classes he is walked though by the para and teacher and is given all the attention "and answers in the end tests he is taken to separate room and still given the answers that he can not comprehend" by both during class while the others in my class who are not challenged but still do not understand the work totally and are hurt by the diverted attention. So my stance is try save those who will have to face collage and the world by them self's give them a better chance to understand and possibly excel in their troublesome classes.
Definitely not during regular class - not a problem at all before or after the class (when no one else is in line). To maximize coverage and efficiency, teachers can actually do the opposite - give more attention to students who perform better, in the condition that they go out and help their classmates. Often students understand each other's needs better than the teacher does.
In terms of people being "smarter" than others. That's a complete myth. If you believe that you are legitimately "unintelligent". The fact is that those people are still people. If you give them more attention you HAVE TO under the law give EVERYONE more attention. That takes away from learning and makes the classroom distractive. There is seriously no reason to believe they should.
Those with lower intelligence, and need more resources should receive it up to a point. I believe they can hold the average student back in the classrooms if they cannot keep up with others. If they cannot function in a normal school, there should be a special public school they can go to to receive accommodations. I think we as a nation send too much money and time on those who cannot perform, at the expense of ones who can. Gifted children programs get the ax before special education. I do not think its fair to have those with severe disabilities to take resources away from those who have a chance. I'm not talking about those with minor learning disabilities or minor autism,; I'm talking about those who are so severe that they will never function in society without help.
No one should receive less attention in school than someone else; to favor less intelligent people is unfair to people of average or above average people and is an attempt to equalize the success of people later on in life. It is just as wrong to favor more intelligent people with better funded programs. I have no problem with equality, but only equality in opportunity; not equalizing after the fact.