The G&T Program: Needed or Not?

Leading New York City Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani recently stated that if elected, he would end New York City’s kindergarten Gifted and Talented (G&T) program. Despite its controversial nature, this proposal is not new. The G&T program has been subject to criticism from parents and politicians alike since its inception. Since then, it has undergone various changes, but the inequalities that plague the program remain. 

The G&T system consists of five main citywide schools and many district-wide programs, with an acceptance rate of around five percent for kindergarteners. These programs feature accelerated classes and give students more opportunities through more robust Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs). The G&T program attracts eager parents due to the perception of favorable academic outcomes and better resources, which many believe provide a pipeline to prestigious middle and high schools. 

Admission into the program starts at four years old. Though initially lauded as a meritocratic system, many have questioned the fairness of testing children at such a young age. In 2022, Mayor Bill de Blasio moved to phase out the program under the reasoning that it led to unintended segregation in the public school system. Eric Adams later vetoed this controversial change but upheld the removal of the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) as a standardized entrance exam for the program, instead opting for teacher recommendations as the admissions criteria.

Today, teachers holistically evaluate students in charter schools, NYCDOE schools, pre-K centers, and NYC Early Education Centers to determine if they exhibit behaviors suited for G&T learning, such as curiosity, initiative, perceptiveness, and self-direction. Students not yet enrolled in preschool or enrolled in a private or parochial school are evaluated through an interview with NYCDOE Division of Childhood Education experts. Afterwards, from kindergarten through fourth grade, students are evaluated based on their grades.

However, many key issues with the program lie in its methods of admission. Some cast doubt on the objectivity of the admissions process. Mandatory teacher recommendations may not be free of bias, and students’ grades—especially at that age—may be influenced by a variety of outside factors. 

Furthermore, parental engagement seems to be the primary factor for a child’s enrollment in the program. However, not every family has resources, knowledge, or awareness about it. While underprivileged students can receive admission to the program through hard work or natural ability, affluent families often have a competitive advantage. Consequently, there is an underrepresentation of lower-income families, even in districts where they are the majority of the population. 

Additionally, the G&T program inadvertently promotes racial segregation within schools. Native American, Black, and Hispanic communities are disproportionately disadvantaged, thus resulting in these groups’ low participation in “elite” education. In the 2018 to 2019 school year, sixteen percent of kindergarten students in the G&T program were Black or Hispanic, despite the NYC student population being 42.2 percent Hispanic and 19.5 percent Black. This disparity exacerbates racial inequalities and limits future opportunities for those students from underrepresented backgrounds.

The G&T program can often have negative repercussions on students as they grow up. G&T students more commonly experience depression and anxiety symptoms, usually in response to pressure from their early environments. Academic success may also prevent mental health professionals from recognizing and diagnosing mental disorders; low grades are often used to diagnose disorders like ADHD in children. G&T children also tend to develop issues with perfectionism and competitiveness due to harsh academic competition. After leaving the program, many former G&T students suffer burn out when they are unable to meet expectations. The expectations established from the G&T program can divide students. Children in the G&T program are often surrounded by the same peers for much of their early years, which can stunt social development and create echo chambers about their perceived superiority. Students not in the G&T program may also be held to different standards, stirring feelings of inferiority or self-consciousness. 

While the G&T program is flawed, it still benefits enrolled students. The stimulating environment of enriched and advanced learning helps develop skills for academic success. It also allows students to delve deeper into their strengths and interests. In particular, studies have shown improved academic performance in Black and Hispanic children when enrolled in G&T programs. Additionally, students benefit from being placed in an environment of like-minded peers. Many students in Stuyvesant and other specialized high schools do come from G&T programs, prepared by more rigorous education. 

Despite the G&T program’s issues, it’s clearly necessary to provide opportunities for the most academically-focused students. Therefore, the administration’s focus should be on reform rather than abolishment. The Department of Education needs to focus on the inclusion of underserved populations and the accessibility of the G&T program.

 For starters, admissions for four year olds should be removed. While admissions methods to the program have changed, the initial admissions age has not, perpetuating the inequalities plaguing our system. Furthermore, additional entry points and seats should be introduced to increase the number of opportunities to access the program, especially for underrepresented students, which has proved beneficial in the past. 

Moreover, more resources should be directed towards schools that do not have robust PTAs or funding in order to alleviate the lack of information or opportunities to access these G&T programs. They should be aimed towards underrepresented communities historically neglected by the program. In addition, changing the depiction of the program from an elitist education to an alternative learning path may help encourage more underrepresented families, who may feel alienated by its reputation, to apply.

Students should have the ability to succeed in any school, G&T or not. Our current system does little to help already marginalized students find academic success. Our resources should be focused on making our educational programs more equitable. While Mamdani’s proposal is a step in the right direction, more work needs to be done to reform the G&T program before it can truly be beneficial for all students.