Dan Guido

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.

Gifted programs in NYC used to be diverse when they were created in the early 90s, then future mayors gutted pipelines feeding them, preferring to push private SHSAT cram programs. That's the root cause of the disparity.

maybe, but I'd want to see the actual in/out stats - it's equally possible that there was a lag between funding being diverted to gifted student programs and people pushing to get their kids in them.

Constituents want X is not in of itself a justification - white people wanted segregation, slaves, etc. Constituents may also (incorrectly) believe that the biased representation is simply because their schools don't have the programs, not because of systemic bias.

But the core of my argument is very simple: you are depriving *more* kids of education if you are diverting funds to a specific subset of them that are "gifted". Especially if "Gifted" strongly correlates to race and class, and "gifted" doesn't match long term performance.