Child Poverty –
Is the National Children’s Bureau report on this topic correct?
 National Children’s Bureau |
A
report by the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) warns that “Britain is at risk of becoming a place
where children’s lives are so polarized that rich and poor live in separate,
parallel worlds”. The report goes
on to state that: child poverty is now a bigger problem than during the 1960s!
|
Below
is a summary of the report.
In 1969, shortly after the NCB was founded, it conducted a
major study looking at the experiences of children from poor, disadvantaged
backgrounds and published the report Born
to Fail?; which revealed how growing up in these circumstances damaged
children’s lives resulting in poor health, under‑achievement at school and lack
of opportunities to fulfil their potential.
Nearly 50 years on, a new report, Greater Expectations, examines 12 key indicators to determine
whether children in this country are still experiencing inequality and disadvantage. It claims to show that far from improving
over time, the situation today appears to be no better than it was nearly five
decades ago, including:
• The number of children in poverty has increased by 1.5 million
since Born to Fail? was published.
•
A child from a disadvantaged background is still far less likely
do well in their GCSEs at 16.
•
Children living in deprived areas are much more likely to be
obese than those living in affluent areas.
•
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to
suffer accidental injuries at home.
•
Children living in the most deprived areas are much less likely
to have access to green space and places to play.
The NCB goes on to advise that overall the inequality that existed
50 years ago still persists today, and in some respects has become worse. Clearly we could be doing much better. International comparisons show that if the UK
were doing as well for our children as the best industrialised nations:
•
almost 1 million children in the UK would not be living in
poverty;
•
172 fewer children would die each year due to unintentional
injury – 14 fewer deaths each month;
•
at least 300,000 more 15–19 year-olds would be in education and
training;
•
770,400 fewer children under 5 would be living in poor
environmental conditions.
How
true is this report, and what should be the definition of child poverty?
The
first part of the report covers Unequal
Childhoods and compares 1969 with 2013, and includes the following topics:
Growing Up In Poverty
The Early Years
The School Years
Getting a Healthy Start
Home and the
Neighbourhood
GROWING
UP IN POVERTY
1969…
One in seven 11 year-olds were living in
poverty. It was estimated that
overall, two million children were living in poverty.
In the early 1960s, when the above
picture was taken, the family unit
was still intact and Christian values prevailed. The UK was a homogenous country with common
values and a shared heritage.
Although many children lived in
properties that would be condemned as unfit for inhabitation in modern-day
Britain, this was more than compensated for by the community spirit that
prevailed at the time with people working together for the common good.
|
2013...
One in four children are living in
poverty in the UK – that is 3.5 million children. This represents a substantial increase on
the 2 million children living in poverty found in Born to Fail?. While it is
difficult to make direct comparisons due to changing definitions of poverty
over time, the figures are the same as those provided by the Institute for
Fiscal Studies, which has analysed the number of children living in poverty,
based on how current figures are measured, for each year since 1961.
It is clear that unacceptable numbers of
children continue to grow up in impoverished circumstances, despite this
country enjoying better living standards overall. And although a child whose parents or
carers are unemployed is more likely to be poor, poverty is not just a
challenge of unemployment.
In fact, the majority of all children
growing up in poverty – nearly two-thirds, (63%) – have at least one parent
or carer who is in work.
The current evidence suggests that the
situation is set to get even worse. A
recent analysis for the Northern Ireland Executive by the Institute for
Fiscal Studies found that tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition
government would result in 600,000 more children living in poverty by the
time of the next general election in 2015.
The figure will rise by more than 1 million by 2020 with 4.7 million
children living in poverty.
The government itself has acknowledged
that the number of children in poverty is set to rise as a result of its
policies, estimating that a further 200,000 children will move into poverty
following its decision to increase certain family benefits by one per cent
each year for the next three years, rather than in line with the cost of
living.
|
What the data tells us about child poverty
• Born to
Fail? estimated that in 1969 approximately 2 million children were living
in poverty. Today, this figure has
dramatically increased to 3.5 million, despite being a wealthier nation with a
higher standard of living.
The
report fails to define exactly what is meant by poverty and how it is measured.
• What is more, it is projected that the number
of children living in poverty will rise: 600,000 more children by 2015 and 1.2
million more children by 2020 as a result of the Government’s benefit changes
and cuts in spending.
Again
the report fails to give reasons for this projected increase in child poverty,
and implies that the problem can only be solved by spending more tax-payers
money, instead of encouraging greater self-sufficiency of those people
supposedly suffering from poverty.
• A significant number of disabled children or
children living in specific family circumstances – for example, in lone parent
families – are living in poverty, potentially compounding experiences of
disadvantage.
The
report mentions that lone parent families
are the most disadvantaged, but avoids any suggestion that tackling the problem
of unmarried mothers would greatly reduce the problem.
• In this report, we will see that living in
poverty had, and continues to have, a detrimental effect on children’s
development, education, health and well-being.
Clearly,
the NCB
has a vested interested in exaggerating the extent of poverty within the UK.
Compared to the 1960’s absolute material poverty has been practically
eliminated as the welfare state ensures that people on benefits have free
access to housing, education, healthcare and council-tax. It fails to address the main cause of why
some children are being disadvantaged – the fecklessness of the parents. If anybody is suffering hardship it is the
married couple with an income below the national average wage who are paying a
high rent for their housing, incurring costs in just getting to work, paying
full council-tax and whose children are not entitled to free school meals.
The
report fails to define what is meant by poverty,
and one can only assume that the definition of poverty in 2013 is vastly
different than that experienced by people in 1969.
THE
EARLY YEARS
1969…
One in seven (14%) of disadvantaged
children had had some form of ‘pre-school
experience’, for example going to a day nursery or playgroup, compared to
one in five (20%) of their more advantaged peers.
The above picture was taken in the early 1960s, and shows
pre-primary school children engaged in a traditionally British Nativity Play. It’s doubtful if the multi-race children
shown in the opposite picture even know who Jesus was!
|
2013...
The vast majority (96%) of 3 to 4 year
olds in England attend some early education:
93% of 3 year-olds and 98% of 4 year-olds. These figures have remained stable over the
last five years. The significant
increase in the proportion of children getting access to early education
since Born to Fail? was published
reflects a growing understanding of the long-term benefits of good quality
early education, and in particular the previous government’s decision to
invest in free early years services for children and families and the
extension of that commitment by the current government to two year olds as
well as programmes intended to drive up the quality of those services.
However, the likelihood of a young child
achieving a ‘good level of development’ in the Early Years Foundation Stage –
for example being able to listen to stories, have good hand-eye co‑ordination
and communicate and play well with others – varies significantly when we look
at children from poorer backgrounds.
While nearly two thirds (64%) of all 4-year-olds achieve ‘a good level of development’ during
their early years of education, only about a half (48%) of children on free
school meals achieve this level.
|
What the data tells us about the early years
•
We know that good quality pre-school
experiences enhance children’s development, and disadvantaged children in
particular benefit from these experiences.
Today, levels of participation in early education in England are high,
which reflects policies such as the provision of free early education for 3 and
4 year-olds, as well as policies targeted at driving up the availability of
early childhood services through Sure
Start Children’s Centres.
In
the 1960s parents would come together and provide free kindergartens for their children in their private homes; but this
facet of social cohesion has been killed off by myriad government Acts and
regulations that now makes it illegal for parents to form their own playgroups
– all this supposedly to protect the interests of the child. The NCB
report fails to mention this over-regulation as a reason for lack of pre-school
education.
•
Despite almost universal enrolment
among 3 and 4 year-olds, young children living in poorer economic circumstances
are less likely to develop well than their more affluent peers. We know that children from poor backgrounds
can develop well if they have access to good quality early years
provision. At the same time, however,
evidence suggests that the quality of early year’s services is weakest in areas
with high levels of deprivation. So we
must and can do more to support disadvantaged young children to develop as well
as their more affluent peers.
We
now live in an age where social cohesion has broken down and many people never
speak to, or even know, their neighbours.
In this environment it is difficult for parents to unite and form
self-help groups free from over-regulation and local authority interference –
perhaps the NCB should be investigating ways to improve this.
It must be pointed
out that currently about 25% of children of pre-primary school age are of
immigrant non-European stock, and it’s doubtful if many of them can even speak
English sufficiently well to integrate with the indigenous children. It is safe to say that the proportional
reduction of children in a pre-school
experience is due to immigrants who have made no contribution to the
Nation, and are welfare dependent.
Indigenous Britons will be rightly grieved if they find that their taxes
are being used to fund a pre-school
experience for immigrant children; especially when facilities are altered
to cater for the immigrant’s cultural demands – such as halal food.
In the 1950’s
Britain was a socially cohesive society where communities worked together for
the common good. It’s unlikely that in
modern-day multi-cultural and diverse (divided) Britain communities will ever
unite to provide a pre-school experience
for their children.
THE
SCHOOL YEARS
1969…
On average, disadvantaged 11 year-olds
were 3.5 years behind their more advantaged peers in reading scores. Of all those pupils considered by their
teachers to be performing poorly, almost three times more were disadvantaged
than advantaged - 58% compared with 20%.
Conversely, of those considered to be doing well, five times more were
advantaged than disadvantaged – 38% compared with 7%.
Five years later, at the age of 16, four
times fewer disadvantaged children scored highly in maths and reading tests,
compared to their peers.
Only four out of 10 (41%) of
disadvantaged 16 year-olds hoped to continue with their education after 16,
compared with seven out of 10 (71%) – of their more advantaged peers.
The picture above shows sixth-form
pupils at the school dance at Townley School, Burnley in 1964. It is inconceivable to think that such a
wholesome event could occur in modern Britain where indiscipline and yobbish
uncouth behaviour are the order of the day.
|
2013...
Nearly five decades on, there is no
indication of the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children at school
disappearing. Today, a child from a
disadvantaged, poorer background is still more likely to achieve a lower
academic level than their peers.
Although eighty per cent of 11 year olds
achieve to the expected level in English and Maths, those children who are
eligible for Free School Meals do not do as well with only 66 per cent
achieving to the expected level. And
the gap between the achievements of disadvantaged children and their peers
continues at GCSE level, with far fewer achieving at least five A* to C grade
GCSEs including English and Maths.
The picture above shows a typical
inner-city school of 2012. Indigenous
British children are definitely in a minority; consequently, resources are
directed towards the immigrant children to meet their cultural demands with
the needs of the white British youngsters being ignored or changed so as not
to offend the ethnic minorities. Is it
any wonder that our indigenous children don’t achieve their full potential!
|
What the data tells us
about the school years
•
In Born
to Fail?, NCB found that growing up in disadvantaged circumstances had a
negative impact on children’s educational outcomes, and on their expectations
of continuing in learning beyond the age of 16.
But
hasn’t that always been the case?
•
Almost 50 years on, these patterns of
inequality remain. Children living in
poverty or deprived areas are doing considerably less well than their more
affluent peers. Children who are in care
have particularly poor educational outcomes compared with other children. And, too many children with special
educational needs (SEN) are not being supported to reach their full potential.
Why
are children in care? Could this be due
to family breakdown, or a general decline in moral and social values – if so,
what is the NCB doing about it?
•
The performance gap between children
from poor backgrounds and those living in richer homes remains just as wide
today. A quarter of children from poor
backgrounds fail to meet the expected attainment level at the end of primary
school compared with 3% from affluent backgrounds. The gap widens at 16 with just one in five
children from the poorest families achieving five good GCSEs, including English
and Maths, compared with three quarters from the richest families.
But
hasn’t that always been the case?
The huge proportion of immigrant children, mainly
from Africa and the Indian sub-continent, is the main reason for the decline in
the proportion of children achieving grades A* to C in English and Maths
GCSEs. It is a known fact that Negros
have an average IQ of 70 and Indian/Pakistanis a mean IQ of 90; which is the
main reason for the reduction in GCSE passes.
However, nowhere will this truth be acknowledged in any official
document and the NCB will conceal any reference to immigration as it will be
deemed racist by the politically-correct liberal left-wing
establishment.
Regardless of the effect of immigration on
educational achievement, it’s got to be acknowledged that even indigenous
children are under-achieving and are not reaching their full academic
potential. This is almost certainly
down to the moral, cultural and social decline that has blighted the UK since
the swinging sixties when all the
standards of decency, behaviour and discipline were trashed to further the
creation of a so-called permissive
society where self-gratification was deemed the order of the day.
GETTING
A HEALTHY START
1969…
One in 11 (9%) of disadvantaged children
was absent from school for one to three months due to illness, compared to
one in 25 (4%) of their more advantaged peers.
One in 12 (8%) of disadvantaged children
was born underweight, which can have long-term negative effects on a child’s
health and education, compared to one in 20 (5%) of their peers.
Children who were socially disadvantaged
were less likely than their peers to have access to swimming baths or indoor
play centres and clubs, and less likely to use those services even if they
were available.
The picture above shows children from a poor area of Bradford
in the mid 1960. Although their father
was a low wage manual worker they were brought up in a traditional nuclear
family where Christian values and the Protestant work ethic still prevailed;
and accepting welfare would have been an insult to their self-esteem.
The children show no signs of obesity, as they would expend
their surplus energy in playful pursuits – as children should do.
|
2013...
Children from poorer backgrounds continue
to be more likely than better off children to suffer from ill health, with
consequences for their education, employment and health into adulthood.
This is despite the fact that, thanks to
medical developments and rising standards of living, we have seen a decline
in illness and death in childhood since the publication of Born to Fail?.
Being born underweight continues to be
more prevalent among children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is also striking that school absences
due to illness are a third higher for children receiving free school means
than for other children.
What’s more, society now faces a new
health inequality challenge: obesity.
Children from deprived areas are at least twice as likely to be obese
as those living in affluent areas – boys are three times more likely to be
obese and girls are twice as likely.
The above picture shows a typical portrait of the child of an
un-married mother living on welfare with free housing and all the other
benefits bestowed onto them by the welfare state. Unlike a family with a working husband, the
single mother has sufficient cash available to buy computer toys and treat
her children with an abundance of junk foods – so ensuring that they gorge
themselves in front of a computer screen with no respite for exercise. It’s certainly a paradox that people living
in so‑called poverty are suffering
from obesity!
|
What the data tells us about children getting a healthy start
•
In his review of health inequalities,
Michael Marmot found that ‘there is a social gradient in health – the lower a
person’s social position, the worse his or her health. These social inequalities affected children
in Born to Fail? in 1969, and they
are still having a significant impact on children’s well-being today.
If
a child suffers from poor health it is not surprising that he, or she, fails
academically; they are more likely to miss school than healthy children and
less likely to participate in the school’s extra-curricula activities. Sadly, a poorly child will always be
disadvantaged and there is very little that can be done apart from the child
achieving full health and mixing with other children in a normal manner.
•
Babies from lower socio-economic
backgrounds are still more likely to be born underweight, which can have
long-term effects on their health and learning – a pattern found in 1969.
So
clearly this pattern hasn’t changed.
Perhaps this is a natural occurrence in accordance with Darwin’s theory
of evolution; i.e. survival of the fittest!
•
A new health inequality issue has
arisen over the last 20 years, with a significant increase during the late
1990s and 2000s in the proportion of children and young people who are obese.
Here, patterns of disadvantage are also visible, with children living in more
disadvantaged areas having higher rates of obesity – three times more boys and
twice as many girls. Consequently they
are more vulnerable to diseases such as diabetes.
If
people are living in poverty, then why are they obese? Clearly, these people are not short of money
if they can afford to stuff their children full of expensive junk food! Material poverty is not the problem here; so
the problem must lie elsewhere, probably in the inadequacy of the parent who
for a quiet life just sticks her children in front of the TV and does nothing
to ensure that they burn off any surplus energy with physical exercise.
•
Today, a child’s socio-economic
circumstances have an effect on some aspects of their health behaviour. For example, the more affluent school age
children are, the more likely they are to eat fruit daily and, as set out in
the next section, children living in more affluent areas have better access to
play or leisure spaces than children in deprived areas.
In
the 1960’s inner-city children were still able to play in the streets as there
was practically no traffic on the roads.
However, as a result of the Labour government’s mass immigration policy
over-crowding has caused a massive increase in traffic.
The NCB claims that children born into
poverty are under-weight at birth, but fails to mention that most of these
under-weight babies are born to third-world immigrants who wouldn’t be in
Britain if the Labour government of Tony Blair had not opened up our country to
unwanted immigration from low IQ Negros and fanatical Muslims. The NCB also claims that children from
poorer families suffer more health problems than those with wealthier parents;
but again fails to mention that a majority of these children are from
immigrants who have made no contribution to the welfare of our nation.
HOME
AND THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
1969…
One in six (18%) of children were living
in poor and overcrowded conditions.
One in seven (14%) disadvantaged children
had had a burn or scald as a result of an accident in the home, compared to
one in 11 (9%) of their peers.
Disadvantaged children had the same level
of access as their more advantaged peers to outdoor leisure facilities – such
as parks, fields and recreation grounds – and they used those facilities just
as frequently.
The picture above shows a typical
1960s family of a technician, his wife and children. This is by no means a wealthy family; they
live in a modest three bed-roomed semi-detached house. It projects a wholesome image of the values
that still prevailed in our society at that period. Both parents maintain a standard of decency
and discipline that their children would be encouraged, and would want, to
follow.
By modern-day standards their
housing and living conditions would appear frugal, with no central-heating,
double-glazing or fitted kitchens.
However, the strong family unit compensated for any deficiencies that
the children would have encountered in their up‑bringing and ensured that
they were nurtured to meet life’s challenges.
|
2013...
Nearly 800,000 children in England live
in overcrowded housing, accounting for one in 14 (7%) of all children living
in households where there are dependent children. This is less than nearly 50 years ago with
the proportion of children living in overcrowded housing today 7%. But it is still very high and there are a
significant number of children – more than 75,000 – living in temporary
accommodation. Year on year the number
of households with children living in bed and breakfast style accommodation
has increased by more than 50% from 1,340 in Sept 2011 to 2,020 in Sept 2012.
Children growing up in disadvantaged
circumstances are still far more vulnerable to accidental injuries in the
home than other children, and the situation appears to have got worse since
the 1960s.
This inequality continues outside the
home with today’s least deprived children nine times more likely than those
living in the most deprived areas to have access to green space, places to
play and to live in environments with better air quality.
The above picture shows Amy
Crowhurst, an unmarried mother with two mullato children who live in a three
bed-roomed semi-detached house all paid for with welfare benefits. Her children will be classed as disadvantaged
by the NCB; however, it is not poverty that will prevent these
children from achieving their full potential, but the lack of moral standards
from a mother who has no intention of leading a life of decency and where the
notion of working for a living and contributing to society is completely
beyond her comprehension.
|
What the data tells us about housing and the neighbourhood
•
Poor housing was used as a key
indicator of disadvantage in the Born to
Fail? study, in recognition of the negative effect of living in a cold,
damp or overcrowded home on children’s life chances. Almost 50 years on, one in 14 (7%) of
children are still growing up in overcrowded housing conditions, having a
detrimental impact on their education, health and well-being.
Who
are these people in overcrowded housing; it’s certainly not the immigrants with
their large families who get fast-tracked into 4 bed-roomed housing at the
expense of indigenous Britons? One
suspects it’s the indigenous working married man, struggling to pay an
extortionate mortgage on a small 2 bed‑roomed house.
•
Today, official data shows a
significant increase in numbers of children living in temporary accommodation,
including in bed and breakfast arrangements, which are disruptive and
potentially unsafe for a child.
Households with children make up 76% of all households in temporary
accommodation. It is possible that we
will see this trend continue, as the effect of changes to housing benefits hit
poor families.
Who
are these children in temporary accommodation?
How many of these are immigrant children, whose parents have invaded our
shores and now demand accommodation in tax-payer funded social housing?
•
Disadvantaged children in Born to Fail? were more likely than
their peers to be burned, scalded or injured as a result of an accident at
home. These inequalities persist and
appear to be even greater. Children from
more disadvantaged backgrounds are far more likely than their peers to be
injured in the home.
It’s probably because so-called disadvantaged children tend to
be free to use their own initiative and learn by their mistakes. Whereas children from wealthy families tend
to be molly-coddled and have everything done for them – not the best
environment to learn about life!
•
Having access to good local
environments, such as parks and green spaces, is a far greater challenge for
children today, compared with children growing up in the late 1960s. In Born
to Fail?, disadvantaged children had the same level of access as their
peers to outdoor leisure facilities.
However, environmental inequality is a real challenge for children today
– with children living in the most deprived areas much more likely than those
living in the least deprived to report two or more unfavourable environmental
conditions.
To provide for the ever increasing immigrant communities whole
areas of parkland and recreational land has been built upon, so reducing the
amenities available for children to play upon.
Reversing the immigration flow into the UK is the obvious answer, but
it’s hardly likely that the politically-correct NCB will have the courage
to express this truth.
The NCB report goes on to blame the lack
of parks and open spaces for poor children in built-up areas being
disadvantaged, but fails to mention that most of the open recreational spaces
have been built upon to provide housing for the masses of immigrants who have
invaded our country over the last 50 years.
CONCLUSIONS
The NCB report, Great Expectations, goes on to make the following recommendations
based on the 12 key indicators detailed in their Report.
Immediate government
action
The setting up of a central government Children and Young People’s Board with full ministerial
representation. This Board should
develop and implement a genuine cross-government multi-dimensional strategy to
reduce the inequality and disadvantage children and young people face, and to
hold all government departments to account for delivery against key indicator
milestones.
Indicator 1: Number of children living in poverty
Indicator 2: Proportion of children living in poverty by
family circumstances
Indicator 3: Number of children in early education
Indicator 4: Proportion of 4 year-olds that birth weight
achieved a ‘good level of development’ in the Early Years Foundation Stage
Indicator 5: Proportion of 11-year-old pupils achieving to
the expected level in English and Maths
Indicator 6: Proportion of 16 year-olds achieving five or
more A* to C grades at GCSEs including English and Maths
Indicator 7: Absence rates from school due to illness
Indicator 8: Proportion of children aged 2 to 15 years who
are obese
Indicator 9: Proportion of babies born with a low birth
weight
Indicator 10: Children living in overcrowded housing or
temporary accommodation
Indicator 11: Proportion of UK children aged 9 months to 3
years unintentionally injured at home
Indicator 12: Proportion of children reporting two, five or
more unfavourable environmental conditions
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility to disclose the
impact each Budget would have on child poverty and inequality in the report it
publishes alongside the Chancellor’s annual statement.
It is apparent that the NCB
is expecting the tax-payer to fund the monitoring of children’s well-being with
evermore state regulation and interference into family life. The NCB seems to be of the opinion that
only by setting up yet more government quangos
to look into all aspects of a child’s life can this perceived problem be solved
– if indeed it really exists.
Fundamental change in
politics and civil society
At the next election, each political party should set out in
their manifesto the full range of measures they will take to improve the lives
of children and young people, reducing inequality in key areas set out in this
report.
One way to achieve this would be for Parliament and civil
society to establish a common set of indicators that are used as a matrix to
hold government to account for what it is doing to address the inequalities and
disadvantages that children face.
Yet again the NCB is looking for a
political solution to solve something that is purely a civil issue; in
particular the life-style choices of the parents, or parent as is now most
often the case.
Successive
governments over the past 50 years have done everything to undermine the family
unit, which was once the bedrock of a stable society. These have included:
· Easy no fault divorce.
· A legal system that favours the women; such
that many men are reluctant to commit to marriage, for if things go wrong they
would lose their home and be unfairly financially penalised for the rest of
their lives.
· The belittlement of marriage as something of
little worth; such that sodomites and lesbians can now marry, making them
legally equal to a hetero-sexual couple.
In addition, our
once high cultural and moral standards have now been completely turned on their
head with values that once would have been unacceptable are now deemed
acceptable, for example:
·
Having
a child out of wedlock would rightly have been considered shameful; now its
rare to hear of a child being born to a married couple.
·
An
unmarried couple living together would have been said to be living in sin.
·
Having
a Negro’s baby would have been seen as the worst kind of miscegenation a white
person could commit; nowadays no-one seems to care.
·
Even in
the public bar of a pub obscene language was seldom heard; in this day and age
it is all around us, even on the BBC.
·
Homosexuality
was rightly kept out of sight; now its offensive message is everywhere to be
seen.
While conversely
standards once considered acceptable are now deemed unacceptable, for example:
·
Being
able to speak truthfully about the negative affects of immigration was
considered the right to freedom of speech; nowadays, speaking the truth on this
topic can get you arrested.
·
Employing
the best person for the job was what employers did; in today’s
politically-correct workplace an employer is now obligated to employ ethnic
minorities regardless of their suitability for the job.
The NCB
Report fails to understand that children are not all the same, their abilities
and IQ is usually inherited from their parents; and low ability parents usually
create low ability children. The
variation in ability (and IQ) of children is distributed throughout society in
accordance with a Normal Distribution curve (Bell Curve); consequently, nature
dictates that the 10% of the population with low ability will always be with us
- so trying to eliminate this proportion of the population is a pointless
exercise. It will be better if the NCB accepted that this section of
the population will always be with us, and are probably Born to Fail, sad as that may be.
