I guess the problem is how the gifted programs are being executed rather than their existence then.
When I read "gifted programs" I certainly would think that race or social background has zero influence on acceptance (even though they do influence kids access to education before getting there).
Reading what you said it seems logical that removing these programs is overall a good thing. But the way I see it the discussion about supporting kids that are truly gifted shouldn't be dismissed.
Maybe the solution would be to actually replace that program with something that's not perpetuating this segregation.
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, so take it with a big grain of salt :)
> But the way I see it the discussion about supporting kids that are truly gifted shouldn't be dismissed
Sure! Yes! We are looking for a fair allocation of resources to actually give schools the ability to meet every student where they are and to engage them wherever that is. All teachers want to be able to meet kids where they are, wherever they are, but they don't have the resources to.
When I read "gifted programs" I certainly would think that race or social background has zero influence on acceptance (even though they do influence kids access to education before getting there).
Reading what you said it seems logical that removing these programs is overall a good thing. But the way I see it the discussion about supporting kids that are truly gifted shouldn't be dismissed.
Maybe the solution would be to actually replace that program with something that's not perpetuating this segregation.
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, so take it with a big grain of salt :)