> But it's unfair to do anything that helps some kids but not others, so it should be got rid of. This is a disingenuous straw man of a summary. If it were th

> But it's unfair to do anything that helps some kids but not others, so it should be got rid of. This is a disingenuous straw man of a summary. If it were the case that it "helps some kids" but the others felt no effect, and they kiboshed the program for that reason, you'd have a point. But the problem here is that it "helps some kids", AND HURTS OTHERS. That's a big problem. The fact that it correlates with SES makes it even worse, because it means that the ones it's hurting most are the ones least capable of defending themselves, but the basic logic would be sensible even if the help/hurt spectrum were uncorrelated.