In what sense do they not correspond? The gifted program was being shut down because schools like Stuyvesant admitted very few black students. See, for example, Forbes' take on the subject;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/08/28/to-add...Likewise, there is an ongoing court case about Yale (which is also spilling over into discussions about other schools) discriminating against students by race. See https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/13/yale-illegally-discriminates.... They have been trying to transition to more subjective methods of student filtering for a while now to hide this better. Rather than include an entire bibliography of the context behind the change, I just linked to that change being enacted, since that's what I considered the important thing being asked for (the proof of systems being made more unfair/objectively worse).
I can't give you bulletproof explanations of why these changes are being made - no one can. No one has come out to explicitly say, "We're changing the math curriculum because [group] is doing worse and we need to tilt the field in their favor." It's always couched in "better world" language - it's more just, more equitable, allows students to learn better, etc. But the claim was that social justice reforms are more focused on destroying something providing value to a privileged group than trying to come up with ways for everyone to achieve better outcomes together. That's what these changes, in general, show.
Instead of having the opportunity to go to a specialized gifted program, even if it's harder for people of some races to get in, no one gets one.
Instead of auditable, comparable, and clearly defined criteria for college acceptance, it's entirely subjective and based on the Admissions Office's biases.
Instead of a math class that teaches actual math, even if some students find that boring or difficult, we have whatever California is doing.