During his recent campaign, New York City’s mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani proposed a myriad of policies. A lesser-known policy proposal he floated was the dismantling of the city’s gifted and talented programs.
While not as central to his election campaign as other proposed policies, the proposal reignited the flames of a major debate in education over the question of whether or not gifted and talented programs should have a place in public school education.
The controversy in New York City is a microcosm of the larger argument over the status of gifted and talented programs nationwide. Opponents to these programs argue that gifted and talented programs increase the existing racial and income disparities in education, while supporters argue that gifted and talented programs are needed to allow students with differing levels of ability to be motivated and challenged in the classroom.
Brian Holzman, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University (TAMU), points out that gifted and talented programs separate students in the higher track from those in the lower track, which may prevent students from learning with each other.
“One of the critiques of tracking is that you’re separating students that can learn from each other,” Holzman said. “Lower tracks are (generally not) benefiting from learning from their peers as much.
Some critics also argue that the process behind selecting “gifted and talented” students can be subjective, depending on state or school district. Some schools require prospective students to test into the program, and others prefer letters of recommendation from teachers. In either case, racial and income disparities may arise.
“I don’t know how I would define gifted and talented, (and) I think that is one of the big issues, that gifted and talented could be subjective,” Holzman said. “And so I think ensuring that there are standard metrics for measuring that is essential. But also, if a wealthier parent is able to get their student tested every year, that’s introducing an external factor into the equation — just being able to test multiple times gives you an advantage.”
But on the other hand, Malcolm K. and Minda Brachman Master Teaching Chair in English Martin Stegemoeller worries that a proposal removing gifted and talented education altogether would promote an “equality of outcome” among the students of public schools, drawing all students to similar academic outcomes instead of allowing the most talented students to thrive.
For Stegemoeller, this topic also has a personal aspect, as he has two children who are in kindergarten and will be testing for gifted and talented soon.
“If the school system my kids were a part of decided that the goal of the school was an equality of outcome, we would immediately pull our kids from the school,” Stegemoeller said. “We want our kids and all kids at the school to grow and develop as best they can.”
As a former administrator in the Houston independent school district, Holzman has seen firsthand the advantages privileged students have with regard to gifted and talented education. For example, wealthier parents can afford to send their children to tutoring in preparation for gifted and talented tests.
“I’ve worked with Houston ISD, and as far as I know, they have universal testing for gifted and talented (in) fifth grade. Everybody in school takes the gifted and talented test, but if you enter in fourth grade, you’re not going to take that test,” Holzman said. “However, if I’m a well-informed parent, (which is) probably related to my whole income and education, I’m going to lobby for my students to take the test. And so that might result in more advantaged families getting more opportunities to place their students into gifted and talented services.”
However, Holzman believes that the issue of inequity in education is a consequence of much deeper problems in the education system.
“Unfortunately, public schools cannot completely solve (these issues),” Holzman said. “A lot of that is due to more structural conditions — segregation and residential housing patterns, for instance. So I don’t think public schools are necessarily going to solve the correlation between family income and education completely.”
Although the educational divide between students based on factors like race and income continues to persist in public education, Holzman believes that it is possible for schools to make positive changes to try to close those gaps.
“If a school district did want to ensure that low income backgrounds had more equitable chances to get into gifted education, they could think about other more systematic changes, like ensuring that the funding levels at various schools meet the students that they serve,” Holzman said. “And then there could be better teachers (at the schools) that can help those students become more prepared for testing. You could also think about finding ways to expand the program and provide special services for students.”
And for gifted and talented programs specifically, there are many proposed ways to improve the admissions process, including universal testing for all students and early identification of gifted students.
“What (some policies) are intending to do is to standardize the qualifications for (gifted and talented programs),” Holzman said. “So that could be one strategy to make sure that gifted education is more equitable.”
As schools continually address the pros and cons of gifted and talented, the status of these programs will likely be a topic of vivid discussion among parents and educators in the near future. Administrators in public schools will continue to have to decide how to allocate resources between general education students and students in gifted and talented programs.
