[triceratops]

> his goal to phase out gifted education programs

Gifted education programs for kindergarten. I don't necessarily agree with that either but it's important to be accurate when talking about proposed policies. The man isn't talking about taking away AP algebra. Most kindergarteners still need to be told not to eat their boogers.

[Aurornis]

“Phase out” means gradually remove.

Kindergarten is where the phase out starts. That’s how you phase something out. You don’t take it away from everyone all at once because that triggers outrage. You disallow it for new kindergarten students one season, then next year remove it from 1st grade so they can’t go into accelerated programs and so on. He explicitly uses the phrase “phase out” for this reason.

Read more of his platform documents, including the ones before everything got watered down for his website.

The “it’s just for kindergarten” is just positive spin on the first step of the goal of phasing it out in general.

[triceratops]

> Read more of his platform documents, including the ones before everything got watered down for his website

Do you have links?

[Aurornis]

It’s been his statement all over: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/nyregion/mamdani-schools-...

The phase out starts with kindergarten and “early grades”. In some places he’s said up through second grade which some assume is an upper limit, but really it’s just the natural length of phasing out gifted programs one year at a time over the 4-year course of a mayoral term due to the necessary delays to eliminate the program after his election date (kindergarten next school year, then 1st grade the next, then 2nd grade)

[triceratops]

Assuming he wants to eliminate all gifted programs because he said he wants to eliminate some of them is a type of ZDS. You also edited your earlier comment to say

> You disallow it for new kindergarten students one season, then next year remove it from 1st grade so they can’t go into accelerated programs and so on

I don't know how it works in NYC now, but it doesn't have to be like that. When I went to school you could always get into the gifted program at the beginning of any school year if your teacher put you up for it. You didn't have to be in the program since kindergarten.

[Aurornis]

> I don't know how it works in NYC now, but it doesn't have to be like that. When I went to school you could always get into the gifted program at the beginning of any school year if your teacher put you up for it. You didn't have to be in the program since kindergarten.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The gifted program for kindergarten will be eliminated in the first year of the phaseout.

The following year it will also be eliminated for first grade.

The following year it will be eliminated for second grade as well.

This is the phase out. Students who start in kindergarten next year won’t have the option of the gifted program because it will be eliminated for the following grade every year.

It doesn’t matter that they didn’t get into it in Kindergarten because it won’t exist in 1st grade when they get there, and so on.

It’s not “ZDS”. It’s literally what he’s said.

[triceratops]

> and so on.

Up to what grade though? The article you provided says Mamdani supports gifted programs starting in the 3rd grade. That's different from your original assertion that he's "[phasing out] gifted education programs", implying that they would end completely for everyone.

My original understanding was it was kindergarten only and that was inaccurate. He's following a plan proposed by de Blasio, which I didn't know about, that's phasing it out up to the 2nd grade. Extrapolating from that to "Mamdani will remove all gifted education" is the ZDS I'm referring to.

I agree with you overall about the value of gifted programs. But it's important to not spiral into hyperbole.

[insane_dreamer]

phasing out K-2 gifted programs seems reasonable to me, and in fact beneficial (I say this as a parent of a gifted child)

you're taking a leap to assume that this will lead to the abolishment of gifted programs in the higher grades (where such programs make more sense)

[Izkata]

Also, they used to start that young. My gradeschool in the 90s would identify gifted students in kindergarten and give parents the option to move them to SWAS (school-within-a-school) starting in first grade.

[riskable]

There is a well-known effect where segregating kids into gifted VS non-gifted harms the education of the non-gifted while only having a marginal impact on the gifted:

https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/982/2019/04...

Basically, non-gifted kids learn from the gifted ones. It's that whole, "positive influence from peers" thing.

In the long term, having gifted programs results in a handful of accelerated students and a lot more struggling ones (at the end of mandatory education).

[Aurornis]

> Basically, non-gifted kids learn from the gifted ones. It's that whole, "positive influence from peers" thing.

In other words, let’s drag the smart students down, disallow them a better education, and instead force them to teach their peers because we don’t think their teachers are doing a good job?

This is a terrible way to solve a problem.

[jcranmer]

Honestly, nothing has done a better job of solidifying my understanding of a material than trying to explain it to other people. We should be giving students more opportunities to do this, not less.

[triceratops]

How does giving some students AP classes take away their opportunity to tutor other classmates? Do they not have friends in the non-gifted track?

[Aurornis]

That’s fallacious.

The students won’t get a chance to learn the advanced material by examining it to others because they won’t be allowed to learn the advanced material.

How do people not see the harms in banning advanced classes?

[jcranmer]

You're presupposing that the only possible way to provide enrichment is by tracking people into advanced classes.

[akramachamarei]

On the contrary, the study you cite found no significant effect either way for either group. From the last page: "we find that gifted grouping does not help or hurt the achievement growth of gifted students nor does it help or hurt the achievement growth of non-gifted students" (emphasis mine.) This certainly does not imply that separating gifted tracks results in a lot more struggling students.

[Aurornis]

Thank you! It’s perpetually frustrating that so many have come up with false ideas about gifted programs hurting other student.

Allowing advanced students to learn advanced topics should be an easy decision for everyone. It’s so strange that it’s become a contentious topic.

[vacuity]

Based on what GP said, it isn't clear that the implementation of "allowing advanced students to learn advanced topics" is successful either. It seems like the current gifted/non-gifted system isn't working.

[triceratops]

I mean that's nice and all. But then you can also get behavioral issues from gifted students who feel stifled. Their needs aren't less important than the other students'.

Kids usually don't learn "school" things like math, reading, and science from each other. They learn behaviors. Kindness, cooperation, competition, integrity, working hard, not being disruptive etc. Having a gifted track for part of the day doesn't disrupt that learning.