>Do you think challenged kids deserve more from public school than anyone else?

Well, let's say we can only spend the money on one group or the other. One could argue that the disadvantaged kids should be prioritized because they need more help, and are less likely to succeed without it.

Whereas gifted kids might be bored in school and do worse than if they had dedicated programs, but they still have the chance to find enrichment outside of school or catch up later in life.

Of course, whether those statements are true would need to be an area of research. How would you calculate the overall ROI for society between the two options? Is it more import to "lift up the bottom" or "accelerate the top"?

And of course ideally we would do both.

I'm just saying it's not surprising that most (liberal / social democrat type) people will default to supporting the "more needy" first.

> Well, let's say we can only spend the money on one group or the other.

That seems like a heavy assumption to me. The gifted kids are still being allocated to classes, so you can serve them better using the same resources you would anyway by just grouping them together.