I haven't read everything, but wanted to jump in and say that the racial gap in identifying gifted children is closed by a thrid option I didn't see mentioned yet.
Same-race teacher identifying students. So including equal numbers of Black and Hispanic teachers in the identification process would likely close the gap significantly. Also measures of potential rather than measures of acquired learning would be important for the identifying gifted children in a less-privileged student population.
I don't like how articles above set this up as a false dichotomy. There are other options. The system does not need to stay segregated, nor do they need to dismantle the existing gifted program. The problem is not the program but the current selection. :facepalm:
I can only hope that the highlighted text was a bad joke.
Such a system would be open to almost unimaginable levels of abuse. I agree on teaching those with high potential - an IQ test would do this without any option for abuse.
While universal screening tests have been found to be more accurate and equitable than teacher recommendation, there are some students who may not quite meet the identification criteria. Additionally, there has been criticism of parity on IQ test questions, over the years.
Taking these two factors into account, the recommendation to have teachers of diverse racial, ethic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds help identify students who were not identified by tests has been suggested by several sources. I think it is great that sanne reminded us of this. 
I believe the important distinction is the order of implementing the identification criteria:
1) universal screening
2) IQ test(s)
3) teacher recommendation
Where
teacher recommendation is not a preliminary filter, but rather another potential step utilized to identify students as gifted (high potential) and add them to the pool. For clarity, in this context, when I say "gifted (high potential)" I am thinking more of Gf, fluid intelligence (innate intelligence, as seen in pattern recognition, abstract reasoning, problem solving, puzzles)... not Gc, crystallized intelligence (acquired knowledge and experience, as seen in vocabulary, general information, analogies)... or G, general intelligence.
