I'm from the SF Bay Area, not Seattle. But this sounds pretty comparable. There are a few merit-based programs in various regions of the US that I know about (SF, Chicago, New York), and their demographics are predominantly East Asian, South Asian, Jewish, and rich white kids. And yeah, those kids had tutors and after-school programs that prepared them for the entrance exams.

But where I am from this kind of test-based entrance is really rare. We used to have that in my kids school district, but not anymore. They switched the specialized schools for gifted students to be lottery-based instead of exam entrance. And guess what? After a couple of generations there's not much difference. My daughter's school used to be a special science-oriented "magnet" school (called a magnet school because it "pulls in" students from across the district who specially apply for it). Now it's really no different in practice than any of the other neighborhood schools.

It all comes down to mixing up correlation and causality. Progressives said it's not fair that only rich white kids and model minorities are getting into these schools, as these schools setup the kids for a better life. Everyone should have that opportunity! So they make the entrance a randomized lottery instead of merit based. Only guess what? The schools had good outcomes because the student body was well-prepared kids with private tutors. Get rid of that factor and they revert back real quick to being regular schools just like any other.

> If you care about social mobility, I think you might be disappointed.

These people don't want social mobility. They want equal outcomes--there's no need to move through society if everyone is at the same level. And they do end up achieving that... by lowering standards for everyone.