The Great Gifted Program Debate: One NYC Mayoral Candidate's Controversial Plan to Scrap Advanced Education Tracks
In a bold move that has sent shockwaves through New York City's education landscape, Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani is demanding the complete elimination of gifted programs in schools—a polarizing stance that has deeply divided education advocates, parents, and experts across the city.
Gifted programs throughout the nation operate with minimal standardization, yet they remain passionately defended by supporters who insist they are absolutely essential for children who consistently perform above their grade level. Meanwhile, opponents raise valid concerns about equity, questioning whether these specialized programs inadvertently reinforce existing social and economic disparities within our educational system.
New York City's public school system currently offers an early gifted program that begins as early as kindergarten, serving approximately 5% of the district's student population. According to candidate questionnaires published by The New York Times, Mamdani—who currently maintains a lead in polls ahead of next month's election—stands alone among mayoral candidates in his proposal to completely dismantle this program.
But here's where it gets interesting: The city also operates a separate gifted program that begins in third grade, which actually aligns more closely with the standard age for gifted program identification across the United States.
"Zohran firmly believes that subjecting five-year-olds to a single high-stakes assessment that unfairly segregates them at the very beginning of their public education journey is fundamentally wrong," stated campaign spokesperson Dora Pekec. "His comprehensive education agenda will ensure every New York City public school student receives high-quality early education that both challenges them intellectually and allows them to reach their full potential."
Educational experts frequently express reservations about gifted programs, particularly those targeting very young children. These concerns typically center on issues of access and screening methods, which—due to the lack of federal standards—vary dramatically from state to state. Access might depend on teacher recommendations or specific test scores, including some examinations that must be taken at off-campus locations.
Christopher Cleveland, assistant professor of education and education policy at Brown University, highlighted a crucial concern: "One of the central issues with gifted education, especially for younger students, involves determining which children will be identified as gifted. This becomes particularly problematic when the system uses an opt-in approach that might require families to arrange for outside assessments. Not all families have the resources or knowledge to navigate this complex process."
And this is the part most people miss: Even universal screening approaches come with their own set of complications. "Some debates focus on using standardized test scores or assessments to identify higher-performing students," Cleveland explained. "This raises questions about whether we're truly measuring student capabilities or merely reflecting the quality of instruction they've previously received."
While states are permitted to establish their own definitions of gifted students, the federal definition under the Every Student Succeeds Act describes such students as those who "give evidence of high achievement capability in such areas as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities."
According to a 2022-2023 report from the National Association for Gifted Children, services for gifted students—even those as young as kindergarten—commonly include accelerated coursework, honors classes, or being temporarily removed from regular classrooms for specialized advanced instruction.
Though precise national participation figures remain difficult to determine due to varying reporting requirements, approximately 3 million students are estimated to participate in gifted programs nationwide. Notably, these students are disproportionately likely to come from wealthier and white backgrounds—a statistic that lies at the heart of the controversy surrounding these programs.
Program advocates argue that expanding opportunities and implementing comprehensive evaluation methods are essential for ensuring no student population is left behind. Megan Cannella, director of outreach at the Davidson Institute, shared some illuminating examples: "We've encountered cases where students didn't understand the significance of the assessment, treating it as mere busywork and rushing through it without demonstrating their true abilities. That's precisely why we always review applications holistically, recognizing that testing provides merely a snapshot of a student's capabilities."
However, others present a counterintuitive argument: earlier identification for gifted programs might actually help reduce disparities between different student groups. Del Siegle, director of the National Center for Research on Gifted Education at the University of Connecticut, suggested to The Hill that delaying gifted program testing until third grade could leave advanced students languishing in inappropriate grade levels for years.
"When we examine how teachers rate students for gifted program identification, we're not finding significant bias in that process—which is actually encouraging news," Siegle explained. "However, many of these children begin school without certain advantages that their peers have enjoyed, meaning they're already playing catch-up from their very first day." He added that learning can stagnate among gifted students if they aren't adequately challenged early in their educational journey.
"Gifted education often gets blamed for these disparities, but the reality is that these gaps exist on the very first day of school," Siegle emphasized. "If educators could more effectively help these children catch up, I believe we wouldn't see such disproportionate representation. It's essentially a double disadvantage for children living in poverty. Without gifted programs to nurture their talents, they get overlooked. And when gifted programs do exist, they're often underrepresented."
Mamdani's stance has cost him the endorsement of Parent Leaders for Accelerated Curriculum and Education (PLACE) NYC, which argues that while the program should be expanded to include more students, it ultimately provides significant benefits to the city's students.
"Implementing a strictly one-size-fits-all curriculum approach is deeply misguided," stated Lisa Marks, co-president of PLACE NYC. "Research has consistently shown that when accelerated students aren't appropriately challenged, they become extremely bored. This leads to disengagement, and eventually, they may become disruptive in the classroom environment."
"These behavioral issues don't just affect the individual student—they impact the entire class's learning experience when teachers are trying to deliver instruction," Marks added.
What do you think about this contentious issue? Should gifted programs be eliminated in the name of educational equity, or are they essential for meeting the needs of advanced learners? Is there a middle ground that could address both concerns? We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments below—whether you agree with Mamdani's bold proposal or believe gifted programs serve a vital purpose in our educational system.
