[HN Gopher] Mamdani says he would phase out NYC gifted program f...
___________________________________________________________________
Mamdani says he would phase out NYC gifted program for early grades
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 41 points
Date : 2025-10-02 17:06 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| pinewurst wrote:
| https://archive.ph/ioSa4
| afavour wrote:
| Putting aside a second the debate about diversity... gifted and
| talented admission tests at four years old strikes me as far too
| young. Having witnessed my own children and their peers grow I
| simply don't believe that passing a test at Pre-K is a useful
| marker of some innate talent, rather it's clued-in parents making
| sure their kid is able to jump through required hoops.
| rayiner wrote:
| IQ is pretty stable from preschool onward:
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16925.
| Especially in identifying low and mid-IQ kids ( _i.e._ people
| who won 't benefit from gifted education).
| dmitrygr wrote:
| That is _WHY_ gifted ed is being killed.
|
| Harrison Bergeron
| LUmBULtERA wrote:
| That paper, which follows 106 people born in Denmark from
| 1975 and 1979, says there may be correlation coefficients of
| 0.48 or 0.50 for IQ groupings between ages (1) 4 and (2) 14
| and 44 years. 0.48^2 is 23%, 0.5^2=25%, so if you accept
| everything else about this, this would mean 23%-25% of
| variance in the older years may be explained by IQ at 4...
| that strikes me as not enough to make your conclusions ("IQ
| is pretty stable from preschool onward) even if the rest of
| the study is concluded to be accurate.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > Having witnessed my own children
|
| ==
|
| "Having witnessed my own friends, I simply do not believe that
| people who can juggle exist."
|
| .
|
| Gifted kids exist. I see friends' kids who read at 4 and they
| absolutely do not need to be stuck in a class with kids who
| still chew on their toys. The fact that you have not seen those
| does not mean they do not exist.
|
| As a second example, I was able to read before I was 4 and
| multiply 2-digit numbers before I was 5. Luckily schools did
| have programs that challenged me. I would have been much less
| lucky, had I been a kid in Mamdani's NYC...
| wbl wrote:
| I mean many of the kids who read at that age do chew things
| still.
| borski wrote:
| True. For me it was my fingernails. :)
| borski wrote:
| > I see friends' kids who read at 4 and they absolutely do
| not need to be stuck in a class with kids who still chew on
| their toys.
|
| Its worse than that; putting them in that class forces them
| into a situation where their only options are abject boredom
| (which kills motivation, drive, creativity) or to act out,
| because it is at least better than being bored.
| akk0 wrote:
| I have a university degree and I still chew on my toys.
| mannyv wrote:
| My kids could read and do math in K, unlike many of their
| classmates.
|
| At that point it doesn't really matter, because K is really
| about play and learning the conventions.
|
| By the end of 2nd grade it was clear that they were bored out
| of their minds. So to private school they went.
|
| For parents with kids that aren't motivated it's hard to
| understand what the fuss is.
|
| But, the Left's problem is that instead of trying to raise
| everyone up they're bringing people down. It was that way in
| the USSR, and it's that way here. Where I used to live the
| Talented and Gifted program (which was state mandated) had a
| $1000 budget systemwide. The "equity" fund was almost a third
| of the budget. At that point why bother with public schools?
| It's taxation without representation.
| LUmBULtERA wrote:
| >But, the Left's problem is that instead of trying to raise
| everyone up they're bringing people down. It was that way in
| the USSR, and it's that way here. Where I used to live the
| Talented and Gifted program (which was state mandated) had a
| $1000 budget systemwide. The "equity" fund was almost a third
| of the budget. At that point why bother with public schools?
| It's taxation without representation.
|
| Whether or not to cut gifted and talented programs is very
| much debated on the "left".
| jen20 wrote:
| I've never heard much debate in the US on this, but in the
| UK it was very much the left that eliminated selective
| education in most of the country, and it's a political
| third rail to talk about it for any mainstream political
| party today (other than, no doubt, Reform - even a stopped
| clock is right twice a day, I suppose).
| busterarm wrote:
| But the "left" that the parent post is referring to would
| argue their detractors aren't the "left".
| borski wrote:
| Yes, but it's the furthest left that is for cutting gifted
| and talented programs, by and large. So while not all of
| the left wants to, the left left does.
| toofy wrote:
| i don't think this is true at all. if anything the people
| i know with far-left tendencies want significantly _more_
| funding for school programs, including gifted.
|
| what makes me question what you're saying even more is i
| have right-wing friends who most certainly do not want
| more funding for _any_ school programs, including gifted.
| and i have classical liberal friends who think we should
| give tax breaks for private schools for "gifted".
| borski wrote:
| > i have right-wing friends who most certainly do not
| want more funding for any school programs, including
| gifted
|
| This is a strawman, though it may not seem like one. I
| agree that much of the right wants less funding for
| public education in general, and/or wants more funding
| for parochial schools and the like. But that is not who
| I'm talking about.
|
| Those on the right who support public education _also_
| support funding gifted /talented schools/programs,
| because they base it on 'merit' and you may have seen
| that word thrown around recently by that orange guy. G&T
| programs _explicity_ fit into their policy and world
| view, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
|
| > i have classical liberal friends who think we should
| give tax breaks for private schools for "gifted".
|
| Cool, but they're not 'left' by the American standards.
| Classical liberals are more akin to American libertarians
| in terms of beliefs/opinions. Which again, is not who I'm
| talking about.
| smadge wrote:
| Can you share more about education in the USSR? My impression
| is that for all its faults, education is one area where the
| USSR excelled, with very high standards and outcomes.
| rayiner wrote:
| Same story for my middle kid. He's bored out of his mind in
| 2nd grade math. He overheard me explaining square roots to
| his older sister while he was working on a coloring page at a
| restaurant waiting for our food. Then he pops his head up and
| says "so square and square root are the opposite of each
| other" (which isn't something I said). He's an exact clone of
| my brother, who has a BS in Physics from Yale.
|
| It's not because he "works hard," and I don't tiger parent.
| There's just smart kids and average kids and dumb kids.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| Bold move to take this stance when he would have caught very
| little heat for saying he wouldn't change anything. But I think
| he's right in that gifted education doesn't mean much in the
| earlier years. It mostly selects for children of means with
| anxious parents.
| deburo wrote:
| I wouldn't based any policy based on people's opinion IMO.
| There has to be a cost/benefit study to base your decision on.
| Anyway kids can be pretty smart. It wouldn't surprise me to
| learn that this program is beneficial even that early in life.
| limpbizkitfan wrote:
| Yeah this is reasonable, they really shouldn't sort kids for
| opportunities in early grades. Instructors shouldn't have to
| focus on whether or not a kid needs more opportunity but on the
| kids who are falling behind; kids who are falling behind
| shouldn't be treated as defects
| borski wrote:
| The kids who aren't falling behind but are _bored_ often
| _eventually_ fall behind, because they did not have enough
| opportunities to grow and explore.
|
| It's not only those who are failing that need help. (And I
| agree they shouldn't be treated as defects)
|
| But gifted kids do exist, and they have all sorts of
| existential questions and concerns that other kids don't tend
| to worry themselves about. Unaddressed, these kids end up
| miserable, depressed, and anxious... which is why it's
| important to pay attention to them too.
|
| Whether Kindergarten is the right age is a different question,
| but to imply that only those failing need help is simply
| untrue.
|
| Individualized education would be ideal, but close to
| impossible, for obvious reasons.
| busterarm wrote:
| Exactly this. I have lived this experience.
| borski wrote:
| So have I. That's how I know it's true.
| slackfan wrote:
| A classic "but are you brave enough to hate the poor" move.
| philipallstar wrote:
| > which became a symbol of segregation in public schools
|
| I cannot believe NYT readers would fall for such partisan
| editorialising.
| John23832 wrote:
| Someone has read Outliers[0] obviously.
|
| I personally don't think that it is a big deal. Giving kids until
| 3rd grade to actually "settle" and demonstrate ability is a good
| idea. Equal opportunity until we can decide as a society who is
| eligible for "more practice".
|
| Though, in reality, the rich and able will give their children
| more practice regardless, so they will reap more of the Gifted
| and Talented slots when the time comes anyways.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)
| greenie_beans wrote:
| my mom taught gifted education. what they teach to gifted kids
| should be taught to every student
| borski wrote:
| Not every student could absorb it at that level. And that's
| okay.
| tsoukase wrote:
| Agree, but usually the gifted kid can solve the problems one or
| two years earlier than the average one.
| jajuuka wrote:
| The weirdly feels like a "can you believe he said that" piece.
| But he's not wrong. Having a two tiered education system from
| kindergarden that favors one group over another does not lead to
| good educational outcomes across the board. Nothing wrong with
| gifted or AP programs, but when they start right away and seem to
| be favoring one group over another that's a problem.
|
| Ultimately this is a minor issue though. Nobody is voting for a
| mayor based on their view of a gifted student program.
| aappleby wrote:
| I was a profoundly gifted kid - taught myself to read just before
| I turned 2, was reading lord of the rings and the shannara books
| at 5, deathly bored in public school because my parents couldn't
| afford private.
|
| To claim that gifted children cannot be distinguished from their
| peers at a very young age is flat out wrong.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Who is claiming that? This sounds totally reasonable - for
| younger kids I believe socialization and play is way important
| than academics.
| erulabs wrote:
| No 20 month old "teaches themselves to read". I'm sure youre
| gifted and it's obviously insane to join this discussion period
| (who am I to change your self identity) but today has been a
| day full of allowing too many delusional people to be
| delusional.
| busterarm wrote:
| I went through NYC's gifted program in early grades. I grew up on
| rent control and food stamps.
|
| My closest school when I started, before the gifted program, was
| spending the majority of its resources on special ed programs and
| barely functional. The gifted program allowed me to attend much
| better schools.
|
| The gifted program was also the basis of what allowed me to even
| interview to attend (and eventually test into) NYC private
| schools. Because of class I would not have had that opportunity
| otherwise. In fact, at first these schools didn't want to deal
| with me -- we had to be very persistent over a couple of years
| just to get me in.
|
| Before the gifted program I was years ahead of my peers and
| barely getting an education in school. It wasn't without
| problems, but it definitely created opportunities I benefit from
| today that I otherwise would not have had access to.
|
| Gifted Program is not just a cheat code for kids of parents with
| means. The parents of means are already sending their kids to
| private schools and gave up on the NYC public school system
| decades ago.
| jnwatson wrote:
| Smart kids can be a distraction as well. It certainly would have
| benefitted me to enter G&T at Kindergarten instead of 3rd grade.
| Much of my first grade was spent separate from the other kids
| doing 5th grade workbooks.
| nis0s wrote:
| There's not enough empathy for the gifted and talented weirdos
| who get bullied by their peers at a pre-school age for being
| differently abled. But I don't know enough about the program in
| question to say whether or not it really was for gifted students,
| or just for those whose parents happened to pull some strings,
| regardless of the parent's income or wealth status.
| borski wrote:
| It was a lifesaver. I went through it. I remember, distinctly,
| going from 'why am I here with all these other kids who just
| want to stare at the wall or play with G.I. Joes or stack
| rings' to an immense sense of relief when there was a bit more
| structure, a bit more freedom to choose what to do, etc.
|
| But more importantly, when I wanted to understand or ask about
| some existential question, my teacher didn't say "oh that's
| cute kid, don't worry about it, just go be a kid and play with
| your friends." They took me seriously, chatted with me through
| my questions, and treated me like I wasn't a complete idiot,
| even though I was a child. That made all the difference.
|
| And even _more_ importantly, asking those questions didn 't
| make me a pariah; instead, the other kids had those questions
| too, and we all learned from each other and grew.
|
| If this sounds a bit absurd, I assure you I knew it then; I
| literally wrote about it in my journal in second grade.
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| Obvious smear hit piece.
|
| But what are the delivered value of G&T programs to students? I
| never saw anything material from CA's GATE in the 80's-90's. Is
| NYC's program different? They seem like (probably not, but it's a
| risk) smart people inventorying programs but more likely they are
| bureaucratic money pile movers.
|
| In a bigger picture of something perhaps different, shouldn't we
| offer investment in the top ~1-3% of kids with alternative
| schools that don't hold back their potential that will likely
| ultimately benefit us? If we're not committed to developing,
| attracting, and retaining brains, then we're setting up a brain
| drain.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-02 23:01 UTC)