I'm skeptical that there's any amount of investing in children that can make up the gap between those with engaged and invested parents and those without. Addin

I'm skeptical that there's any amount of investing in children that can make up the gap between those with engaged and invested parents and those without. Adding in raw ability does not make closing any gaps easier. And, obviously, how much money a family has has a strong influence on whose parents are engaged and invested. I attended a form of magnet school, funded by a dozen or so school districts in the county. It was able to offer classes that none of the districts could have afforded by themselves. Even there you had implicit tracking - you could do lots of calculus or lots of chemistry or lots of physics, but not all of them. Dismantling it might have improved funding a bit at the home schools, but at the cost of shutting down all the advanced courses entirely. Letting people opt in to gifted programs is a wonderful idea! A great many children only wait for the chance to succeed. That said, it might be worth considering carefully the resources requires and consequences. There will inevitably be children who are not up to the task. Opting them in to programs they are not ready for is setting them up for emotionally devastating failure as you grow class sizes. I am uncomfortably reminded of how many colleges use lower division courses as weeders. They let anyone opt in to 101 and 102, but 301 is dependent on making it past those. I love the idea of public schools. Education can, should, must be for everyone. However, this belief often sits awkwardly with the reality. Ultimately, if you want to keep higher income families in public schools you have to offer them something compelling. Dismantling gifted programs for anti-racist reasons may not always make the grade.