Keep Gifted Schools

Starting from as early as four years of age, students are exposed to standardized testing that aims to find “gifted” individuals among them. Following Gifted And Talented (G&T) screening throughout lower school, lucrative middle schools such as Brooklyn’s Mark Twain and Christa McAuliffe weed out the brightest using criteria based on state test scores, attendance records, yearly report cards, and in some cases, “talent” auditions. In their third year of middle school, nearly 30,000 students take the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT) with hopes of getting into one of the eight elite high schools in New York City; only 18 percent of applicants succeed. The next four years of a high schooler’s life may be crowded with AP tests, honors classes, and college admission exams such as the ACT and SAT. In short, examinations and academic selection never seem to end, with G&T programs marking only the beginning of the extensive process. Yet, a recent recommendation put forth by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s appointed diversity council has suggested the elimination of all G&T programs in New York City, threatening to upset the entire screening system. Ultimately, eliminating G&T programs would not only prove ineffective at combating educational inequity, but it could also worsen the divide.

The primary appeal of G&T programs is their enriched educational curricula and their goal to prepare students for challenging material and ultimately, real-world success. Though the acute differences between G&T and non-G&T classes may seem insignificant for children as young as four years old, they are exposed to enhanced common core instruction, hands-on projects, and in some cases, high school courses such as U.S. History, Global History, or Algebra, which are not offered in every district school. A G&T system typically goes hand-in-hand with enriching after-school activities as well, such as robotics, chess, or tae-kwon-do. In perpetually underfunded public schools, free and educational after-school activities are a rare sight and a major pull factor for parents. To enter the intensive G&T system, children are required to answer nearly 80 questions testing skills such as pattern identification and basic puzzle solving. They also must demonstrate relatively high intellectual development in a test setting, needing a score in the 90th percentile for district programs and a score in the 97th percentile for city-wide programs. While many school districts have separate gifted classes for students, the five city-wide programs available are NEST+M, The Anderson School, Talented and Gifted School for Young Scholars (TAG), Brooklyn School of Inquiry, and Q300: The 30th Avenue School.

De Blasio’s appointed council seems to have seen the value of G&T schools differently and has put forth the notion of eliminating the G&T program, with magnet schools and “mixed-ability” classrooms serving as replacements. But if the test-centered frenzy were to tell the mayor anything, it’s that zoned, non-G&T schools are underfunded and insufficiently stimulating to their G&T counterparts. Along with other reforms de Blasio has in mind, eliminating the G&T test will also change the middle school admissions process, as the mayor strives for a more holistic and demographically representative selection. Instead, magnet schools and “enrichment programs” are planned to replace the number-based screening process, though the report created by de Blasio’s diversity council lacks specifics. The lack of specifics decreases the validity of de Blasio’s plan, making its potential benefits harder to believe.

De Blasio’s panel’s plan is meant to take NYC’s school system one step forward, but all it would do is bring it a step back. Some believe de Blasio is going forth with the right motions, as a racially unbalanced program rightfully deserves changes. However, eliminating the G&T program would be counterproductive. If the G&T program were taken away, then a new program would have to be built from the ground up, which would take more time and experimentation than to simply adjust the G&T program. De Blasio’s alternative also lowers the bar for students, making the school system less about education and more about keeping everyone on the same level. Instead of lowering the bar and educational standard, students should retain the right to a public education that fits their academic abilities and intellect.

A more beneficial solution would be an expansion of G&T programs across the city, with an emphasis on underrepresented communities. At the moment, many parents are held back from enrolling their children in the G&T system due to a lack of availability. In addition to not every district school having G&T classes and only five city-wide programs to boot, the G&T program supply is nowhere near the demand. Though some expansion has been seen in recent years with Queens adding the G&T program to 29 schools, insufficient expansion has been made into underrepresented communities, as the South Bronx region added G&T classes to nine schools in 2018. Instead of ending the G&T program, de Blasio and his task force should focus on expanding programs to students in Black and Hispanic communities. While it may take time to train teachers to teach G&T classes, it is nothing compared to the time and resources it would take to implement de Blasio’s alternative. Accessibility is one of the first steps to a better education, and by expanding the G&T program, more students will experience the educational preparation meant for real-world success and competitive middle and high school enrollment.

It is hard to say whether the vision proposed by de Blasio is shared by the majority of parents in the city. But from middle-class families, and perhaps from many families who had their children take the G&T exam, support is nowhere to be found. As some sought after private schools charge around $30,000 for kindergarten alone and up to $55,000 for high school, parents panic as to where to find a source of reliable public education for their children; 66.91 percent and 76.32 percent of NEST+M and The Anderson School’s student body get admission offers from specialized high schools, respectively, quantitatively proving the success of the G&T program. On the other hand, de Blasio’s panel’s current educational experiment proposes to use NYC’s children as lab rats, with no promise of success. The plan also threatens to push away the same pool of Asian and Caucasian families that make up 75 percent of the city’s G&T system, which may send their children to chartered or suburban schools in the event of the elimination of the G&T system. In turn, racial demographics in the public education system would experience a greater rift.

At the end of the day, the main concern for parents is whether their children are learning and improving. Education is a priority, and the fact of the matter is that de Blasio’s panel’s plan would not result in the betterment of NYC’s school system. It would instead lower the quality of education and worsen an already severe racial divide. The current experimental alternative is poorly planned and would be outright ineffective, with no guarantee of minimal success. An expansion of current G&T schools would make the program more accessible and is a safer alternative to the council’s plan of public school admissions upheaval. Students would also be more prepared to apply for high school and would have a better chance of entering prestigious institutions. The current generation of students is our future, and creating a secure system of quality education ensures a promising future.