I made it to the state region levels as a kid with a lame project, but I did it all myself, and I remember walking the aisles thinking to myself, "I can probably win against that kid, but there's no way I can win against that kid's Dad who obviously did all the work"
The pinewood Derby in scouts kind of suffers from a similar problem, "who's dad has the best woodworking shop"
This might be a useful life lesson, in that on a very large scale the first thing you learn in business, politics, law is whats right or legal doesn't matter, its all in what you can get away with and who your parents are, and the top players tend to be better at getting away with things and won the genetic lottery. A meritocracy ... of crooks. And that's an education all in itself that will provide a lifetime of benefits once understood at an early age. So I'm not necessarily seeing a problem with education kids.
I want kids, including my kids, to learn that life is fair and if they don't see it be fair, they have to sit down and fix that.
The author seems to support the idea that schools should provide more support and facilities. That sounds good, but the outcome of some schools doing this (the infamous ones near New York, apparently) seems to be the focus of criticism. I'm left not understanding the thrust of the article.
Money? Unless that's filed under support.
The whole idea of making children compete is questionable, and once you bring money in it completely loses reason to exist.
The experiment itself doesn't matter as much.
I view this as an excellent opportunity to diffuse a better and deeper understanding, even enjoyment, of mathematics into the community. But I think the author of this article would view this as contributing to systemic unfairness and leading to an uneven playing field.
Imagine a kid who has had the best environment possible: his parents were some kind of scientists, encouraged his interest in the same thing, and had access to the proper facilities. Another kid has parents that don't care about any kind of science, and were too poor to indulge his interest beyond letting him buy some books and lend them at the library.
If the first kid wins some prize over the other[1], it's not a prize saying "you did best given equal starting points". It just says that he did the best.
If you want to measure something other than skill in science X, like having the best willpower and drive irrespective of background and talent, then you should come up with another competition.
[1] And they both did the work themselves, to a reasonable degree. Not something that the parents did for them.
To me, that's the basic assumption that you have to start with. Afterwords, you're free to figure out how to make things more fair, but if you don't start out understanding that things will always be messed up, you're left with a senseless rant.
From what I got through it seems like the author was upset that some parents can spend more time with their kids and that teachers were setting a high standard, and that wealth in families can function as a privilege for children. Those seem like pretty fundamental issues to me. The science fair is maybe like a microcosm of life that way, but I didn't get what was a problem unique to it.