A wee overstatement, perhaps.
Certainly, the distribution of educational resources could be better optimized, but that won't happen in places where experimentation on educational styles is impossible.
If the market for education was open to this discovery process, there would be a lot more gods walking around. As for stupid people, there would be no incentive to spend more resources on them than necessary for what they'll end up doing. Sure, parents are free to spend a fortune on their stupid kids, but it won't do anyone any good, and it's their choice to make.
An article by Lew Rockwell on the subject:
Also: When I say "god", I really mean a smart person that is able to reach his full potential.
Am I using language in a way counter to what it is for? Maybe. Am I trying to convey a point I think is important by doing so? Certainly.
Because that has happened and is described in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, about a school in a poor area of a big city which has good results, and their secret is school every weekday and Saturday, starts early, finishes late, focused work.
I reject the notion that all kids should have high scores on their government demanded tests. It's easy to become blinded by flashy results. But remeber the tests you had to take in school. There were always two approached.
1) Study a lot, fill your brain with all the details before the test.
2) Just understand whatever it is you're doing.
Method #1 is hard, you have to focus, and you won't really learn anything either, al you will learn is how to repeat something you've heard before. It's likely that you'll forget what the test said you had supposedly "learned" within a year.
Method #2 is easy if you're smart, especially in High School, later on in life you actually have to practise
I'm saying that the market would produce what we demand, not what some social engineer deems fitting.