> as though gifted programs take up a sizable chunk of funding rather than, you know, the schools.
I am saying that. "Gifted" programs and the schools that house them eat up a sizable chunk of funding.
I am saying that. "Gifted" programs and the schools that house them eat up a sizable chunk of funding.
There's no relationship between gutting gifted programs and either alleviating inequality or improving outcomes of all other students. If you want to do the latter, that requires it's own intervention.
This basically apes the rhetoric of the right-wing on the part of social spending. "We can't afford it, it should be spent on other things". Same mentality.
It's puzzling why you won't lend credence to an important factor: poverty has cognitive consequences. Yet rather than trying to improve the lot of those students, you're fixated on taking things away. This is how socialists think: some people have it too good and need to be punished.