Dan Guido

There's actually a real issue being addressed: "Gifted" programs have a very heavy bias in favor of wealthy+privileged kids, which because of continuing inequality is essentially the same as saying "give additional support and resources to already privileged group".

This isn't a matter of "gifted student programs are bad" it's a "as implemented, gifted kid programs reinforced existing bias". The reality is that if anyone needs more teaching resources it is the "less gifted".

The current system is failing so many students because it's been corrupted by commercial test prep classes. That's a fixable problem by expanding access. Eliminating gifted programs limits opportunities for everyone.

But the other side of that is: funding for gifted student programs necessarily come out of funding for the students who aren't in those programs. Unfortunately educational funding *is* a 0-sum system, so funding that primarily benefits a specific group it's reducing opportunities

In an ideal world this wouldn't be a problem because selection for "gifted" programs would be entirely objective. But it isn't. It's driven significantly by parental involvement (which means parents who can afford to spend time not working) as well as numerous other system biases

I also recall (but cannot find) a study that showed that being "gifted" does not correlate significantly to long term "success" (presumably a wealthy white definition of success, but the point stands). If that study isn't imaginary it provides support for dropping the programs.