I think that was the most impactful part. I'm curious what you think though.
If you were to dissect what makes actually makes a gifted and talented program different or better is it actually anything to do with the selection part of it or is it a result of being surrounded with peers from better socioeconomic backgrounds who are more likely to make it through the selection in the first place?
Take another step back and also consider if you had a twin with virtually the same upbringing as you up until your mom forced you to try out for the magnet program, would they benefit more or less from the g&t school existing or if that funding had been distributed to their under-funded schools? Would more kids on average benefit from the existence of these programs than not?
Obviously there are other confounding factors here but I'll enter this in as a counter-anecdote, I went to a small suburban school district in the north east that had a single, well-funded public high school, our graduation rates, testing outcomes, and college acceptance rates were comparable with g&t schools in other states.