- "It is wrong to allow bright children to go to special schools. This deprives the ordinary schools of their beneficial influence."
If you regard children as the property of the state, existing to serve it, then it is explicable why the bright ones should be regarded as a scarce commodity, and rationed accordingly. The idea of allocating their "beneficial influence" equally through society follows from the same twisted logic.
The vicious notion is that children, whether bright or not, should be regarded as the instruments of the ends of others, instead of ends in themselves. Children do not exist to serve the purposes of the state, it is the other way round. The concern should be with what is of benefit to the individuals concerned, rather than with how they can be made to serve some ideological view of society.
Don't you understand, children? You belong to the state. Now get back into your Toynbee-endorsed State Podding HutchTM and eat your lettuce. You don't want to get fat now, do you? Because then you'll have to be punished.
Go and read the whole thing, plus The Englishman has a thing or two to say on this subject too.