Zoran Mamdani’s Proposal to Abolish Gifted Programs Sparks Debate
Zoran Mamdani, a candidate for mayor in New York City, has stirred controversy among education advocates with his suggestion to eliminate gifted programs in schools. His stance has polarized opinions, creating a divide within the community.
Gifted programs currently lack standardized regulations, which raises questions about their fairness and necessity. Supporters argue that these programs are crucial for students who perform above their grade level, while critics highlight concerns about equity.
In New York City, public schools start offering gifted programs as early as kindergarten, with roughly 5 percent of students participating. Mamdani, who is leading in the polls ahead of next month’s general election, uniquely advocates for shutting down these programs, as noted in a candidate survey referenced by reliable sources.
However, other gifted initiatives typically begin in third grade, aligning more with national norms.
“Zoran believes it’s unfair for five-year-olds to be judged on a single test at the beginning of their public school journey. His vision is for all NYC public school students to have access to high-quality early education,” said campaign spokesperson Dora Peckek.
Experts have voiced concerns regarding gifted programs for younger children, particularly about the inconsistency in access and assessment, given the absence of federal guidelines. Entrance into these programs often relies on teacher recommendations or specific test scores, some of which require off-campus exams.
Christopher Cleveland, an assistant professor focused on education policy, explained one major issue: “Who gets identified as gifted raises questions. The system operates on an opt-in basis, meaning families must navigate external assessments, which not everyone can afford or even know about.”
Concerns about universal screening methods have also emerged. “Discussions around using standardized assessments highlight their potential inadequacy in truly capturing students’ abilities alongside the teaching quality they experience,” Cleveland added.
While states can define gifted students in their own ways, the federal definition under the Success Act emphasizes that these students demonstrate high achievement and require specialized services not normally provided in schools.
A report from the National Association of Gifted Children indicated that even services for kindergarteners typically involve advanced courses or removal from regular classes for targeted instruction.
Although it’s challenging to determine the exact number of gifted program participants nationwide due to differing reporting criteria, estimates suggest approximately 3 million students are involved, with a tendency toward wealthier and predominantly white demographics.
Proponents argue that expanding opportunities and ensuring comprehensive assessments can help prevent marginalized groups from being overlooked. Megan Canela from the Davidson Institute shared stories of students misinterpreting their assessment results, which suggests that a thorough look at all applications is essential.
Some believe instituting gifted programs earlier could help address achievement gaps among different groups. Del Sheegle, leading the National Center for Gifted Education, pointed out that delaying assessments until third grade may result in students stagnating at inappropriate grade levels for years.
Sheegle emphasized, “Teachers assessing children for gifted services usually do so without bias. However, many children lack the advantages that others possess, so they struggle to keep pace from day one. If gifted students aren’t challenged early on, their learning can be hindered.” He also noted, “For students in poverty, this issue is exacerbated; without access to gifted programs, their potential often goes untapped.”
Mamdani’s position has contributed to a loss of support from the Accelerated Curriculum and Parent Leaders for Education (PLACE), an organization advocating for improved educational outcomes for NYC students.
“It’s misguided to adopt a one-size-fits-all curriculum. Advanced students can become disengaged and disruptive if they’re not adequately challenged,” remarked Lisa Marks, co-president of PLACE NYC. “These behaviors disrupt not just their learning, but that of their entire class.”
