frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Open in hackernews

Mamdani Says He Would Phase Out NYC Gifted Program for Early Grades

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/nyregion/mamdani-schools-gifted-and-talented-program.html
17•JumpCrisscross•1h ago

Comments

pinewurst•1h ago
https://archive.ph/ioSa4
afavour•1h ago
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•17m ago
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•3m ago
That is WHY gifted ed is being killed.

Harrison Bergeron

dmitrygr•4m ago
> Having witnessed my own children

Having witnessed my own friends, I simply do not believe that people who can juggle exist.

mannyv•4m ago
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.

acjohnson55•55m ago
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•5m ago
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•36m ago
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•31m ago
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.

slackfan•22m ago
A classic "but are you brave enough to hate the poor" move.