> i have right-wing friends who most certainly do not want more funding for any school programs, including gifted

This is a strawman, though it may not seem like one. I agree that much of the right wants less funding for public education in general, and/or wants more funding for parochial schools and the like. But that is not who I'm talking about.

Those on the right who support public education also support funding gifted/talented schools/programs, because they base it on 'merit' and you may have seen that word thrown around recently by that orange guy. G&T programs explicity fit into their policy and world view, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

> i have classical liberal friends who think we should give tax breaks for private schools for “gifted”.

Cool, but they're not 'left' by the American standards. Classical liberals are more akin to American libertarians in terms of beliefs/opinions. Which again, is not who I'm talking about.

I suspect your right wing friends would agree if you said “society should focus additional resources developing people who are naturally gifted.” If you frame it in terms of “school funding,” what you’re actually measuring is their beliefs about whether school funds actually reach the kids they’re supposed to help.

Complete rubbish. Far left tendency is to claim any promotion of children to gifted classes is racist and sexist unless its the right gender and race.

Most public school districts in America spend north of $20,000 per student per year. That’s $400,000 a year for a classroom of 20 students.

Anyone who thinks money is the limiting factor in education is either delusional or is receiving a chunk of that money that never makes it into the classroom.

Countries all over the planet provide superior education to students for a tenth of the cost.

Your right wing friends are correctly but ambiguously stating that if we can’t have a gifted program at these funding levels, there will never be a gifted program at any funding level.