I didn't think the GP was arguing that. School systems are focusing on equality of outcomes, when they should be focusing on equality of opportunities.

Gifted kids will be able to take better advantage of those opportunities and experience better outcomes. But that's ok; that should be how things work.

When you focus only on equal outcomes, you end up with the lowest common denominator, and gifted kids get bored and don't excel.

When I was growing up (80s), I was in a program for gifted kids. I do expect that I got opportunities that other kids didn't get, which is a problem. But ultimately I thrived and have become successful, and I'm sure programs like that helped. In middle school and high school I was always placed in the highest-level classes (there were 4 levels), and I am certain I wouldn't be as successful had I been given the same instruction as kids in the bottom level or two.

My outcomes were certainly better, but as long as everyone has the opportunity for advanced instruction -- if they have an aptitude and can qualify for it -- I think that's fine.

I'm sure there was some inequality of opportunity when I was in grade school, and that sort of thing does need to be fixed. But we can't do so in a way that assumes all kids are equally gifted and talented. That's just not how people work.

To be clear I think the goal should not be to equalize opportunities or outcomes. I think the goal should be to equalize the amount of challenge each student experiences, wherever they are. (It's like strength training.)