No Matter When They’re Identified, There Aren’t Enough Gifted & Talented Public School Seats

More data on why NYC should expand seats at G&T programs by Alina Adams

I am excited to publish an essay by

Alina Adams

about the need for more G&T seats in NYC (and in other districts across the country). As I also wrote in my NY Post article, we should be discussing how to increase the number of schools that offer advanced curriculum instead of eliminating the few seats still available.

In New York City, the largest number of available seats at public Gifted & Talented programs are in Kindergarten. Students may apply for first, second, third, and sometimes fourth grade entry, but placement depends on attrition. Some schools may only have a handful of open slots while the most popular remain full and closed to newcomers.

Zohran Mamdani, Democratic nominee for NYC Mayor, announced he would do away with the Kindergarten entry point in the interest of equity. He’s left the door open for a third grade assessment and placement.

While Kindergarten is a student’s best chance to access NYC’s five accelerated, citywide schools or one of the district programs, there’s also the recently created “Top Performers” track where those in the top 10 percent of their schools in second grade can transfer to third through fifth grade G&T classes.

Here’s the problem: No matter the selection method, NYC doesn’t have enough seats to accommodate all the children they’ve deemed “gifted.”

When NYC tested for admission into Kindergarten G&T, about 4,000 children qualified for around 2,000 spots.

When they switched to teacher identification, over 9,000 qualified for about 2,500 spots.

When grades were utilized to accept into first through third grade G&T, all those with 3’s and 4’s on their report cards were deemed eligible. If that’s the formula for Mamdani’s proposed third grade entry, 60 percent of students, 42,000 out of 70,000, would qualify. If we go with teacher recommendations, then following current trends, 85 percent, 59,500 would qualify.

Even if we opt for the more limited, across the board top 10 percent approach, that would still mean 7,000 applicants competing for 2,500 openings. 4,500 kids would remain left out of advanced-level education.

To accommodate everyone at third grade entry, the existing G&T system would need to be drastically expanded, including new spaces and certified teachers – both already limited due to the class size mandate.

The reality is that in NYC, not all students receive an equally excellent education no matter where they’re enrolled.

NYC schools vary widely in quality, ranging from ones where nearly everyone graduates college-ready to those where not a single student is performing at grade level.

Yet, even at the latter, many students are earning 3’s and 4’s on their report card.

Which is where a third grade entry G&T program hits its second snag.

Kids starting G&T in Kindergarten are exposed to challenging material straightaway. Bringing together thousands of new students to start an “accelerated” curriculum in 3rd grade would mean combining kids at different levels of preparation (an “A” in one school isn’t the same as an “A” in another) and basically forcing a large proportion of them to essentially skip a grade.

This will not set many up for success, especially those coming from lower-performing schools. Just because they’ve shown the capacity for doing more challenging work doesn’t mean they’ve been exposed to it and/or provided with the necessary foundational knowledge.

In 2022, I traced the number of minority students in specialized high schools dropping after G&T and honors middle school programs were removed in underserved neighborhoods. In order to be placed in accelerated classes in higher grades, students need access to accelerated material in lower ones.

Mamdani is right. There aren’t enough opportunities for underserved students to access high quality curriculum and instruction. But the solution to that cannot possibly be fewer such programs. It has to be more of them.

How can fewer years spent in an accelerated requirement – which is what would happen if G&T were to only commence in third grade – be better than more such years? Shouldn’t it be that the earlier NYC starts offering a more rigorous curriculum to more students, the better?

For nearly two decades, I’ve asked the Department of Education: If they believe students identified as “gifted” (no matter the screening method) warrant a separate educational environment in a Gifted & Talented classroom, how can they justify offering such a classroom to only some of their “gifted” students?

If we were talking about students with special needs, only offering services to some (via lottery, no less!) would be a violation of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Whether it’s Mamdani talking about NYC or any other US school district, he’s not wrong saying there aren’t enough minority students in America’s gifted programs, and that those students are not receiving an education on par with their abilities.

But the obvious solution is to create more opportunities for advanced work, not less, and to make those opportunities available as early as possible, so fewer children are at risk of falling behind from the start and never catching up.

Alina Adams is the author of “Getting into NYC Kindergarten” and “Getting into NYC High School,” and a school admissions consultant. She writes about education – and a whole lot more – at Alina’s Susbtack Newsletter.