When I was at school there were always certain children who wouldn't learn anything you tried to teach them. If the whole class had to sit through their remedial reading classes with them, not much would have been learned by anybody. I wasn't a great reader myself when I was 9, until a teacher found a book for me that was interesting enough for me to want to read. Look at me now, I use words like eschatology in normal conversation*, blame Rosemary Sutcliff.
Conversely, when I was shown how to program a line of basic that said hello, and then said it again 10 more times, I don't recall having any sense that this new skill could do anything much for me. But the computing landscape has changed a little since then, there's more engaging tools for nippers to play with, and they have a much broader scope to use these skills in pursuit of simple fun than we had, which greatly increases the chances of developing academic engagement. I believe that every kid will learn more across the board if they find some part of the curriculum interesting, but if you just keep teaching the same boring subject they already don't enjoy every day they will simply stop inquiring.
As for predicting in the case of a tiny child which skills they will need for the distant future; that's futile at best, self defeating at worst. Which is another good reason to teach them as broad a range of subjects as you can.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... l-language* technically it was a conversation about words you've read but never heard anyone say out loud, but let's not split hairs.
