Oh well said, that man! Let me share an extreme example of the tyranny of which you speak.

I know a woman who is the head of a primary school for special needs kids. She used to have the flexibility to adapt the curriculum based on the competencies of the child. So each child pretty much had a personalised learning plan. This has been changed. So kids who simply will not ever be able to understand the concept of numbers and values are forced to sit through X hours of numeracy every week, while the subjects they really need to focus, like life skills, or really enjoy (say art, for argument's sake) are either severely restricted or absent altogether.

We can be politically correct and say that we must give every child equal opportunity to achieve yadda yadda, but if a child has a physical anomaly, or a developmental 'defect' (for want of a less perjorative word), there are some things they simply can't do. A blind child cannot see colours. A child in a wheelchair cannot pole vault.

Why is it such a bad thing to take realistic stock of what such a child's limitations are and develop a plan that allows them to achieve, rather than setting him up to fail?

Just like your son, I used to have to fight with teachers who gave no quarter when homework hadn't been done because I had gone straight from a netball match out onto the stage to play Beatrice (Much Ado). I simply told them I was focusing on the aspects of my education that were important to me. To them, extra-curricular = non-educational. Error! Error! Error!