Balancing equity and excellence: Zohran Mamdani's plan to phase out gifted kindergartens in NYC sparks debate

Zohran Mamdani , a leading Democratic candidate in the New York City mayoral race, has reignited a national conversation on education equity with his proposal to phase out the city’s gifted and talented program for early grades, according to reporting by The New York Times . The selective kindergarten program, which admits fewer than 5 percent of students, has long been criticised for deep racial and economic disparities, with Black and Latino children historically underrepresented.

Mamdani argues that early testing often favours children from wealthier families and does not reliably predict long-term academic potential. His vision combines eliminating early acceleration with universal, high-quality early childhood education , including free childcare for children under five, aiming to level the playing field while providing advanced instruction later in elementary school. The proposal has sparked a lively debate among educators, parents, and policymakers about how best to balance equity with the needs of high-achieving students.
Equity vs. excellence: NYC as a test case for the nationNew York City’s gifted and talented program begins in kindergarten, admitting a small fraction of applicants through standardised tests and classroom assessments. While the program is designed to challenge advanced learners, critics argue that testing children as young as four or five is unreliable and often influenced by access to preschool enrichment and parental advocacy, The New York Times reports. This results in a system that disproportionately favours children from affluent households, leaving many capable students from historically marginalised communities behind.

Supporters of the program emphasise that acceleration helps bright students reach their full potential and keeps high-achieving families invested in public schools. They contend that removing the program could push these families toward charter or private schools, ultimately undermining the city’s commitment to a diverse and inclusive public school system.

Data on gifted kindergarten admissions reveal significant disparities. White and Asian children are overrepresented, while Black and Latino students—who make up roughly two-thirds of the city’s K-12 enrollment—constitute only about a third of gifted kindergartners. Critics argue that the program exacerbates segregation within schools, creating a pipeline from early gifted classes to selective middle schools and elite high schools, reinforcing inequality at every stage. .
Policy alternatives and Mamdani’s visionMamdani’s proposal aims to eliminate new kindergarten admissions to gifted programs while allowing current students to continue. Instead of segregating children at age four or five, the plan emphasises universal access to high-quality early childhood education and childcare, setting a strong foundation for all students.

The proposal also calls for introducing accelerated learning opportunities later in elementary school, once teachers have had time to observe classroom performance. This approach mirrors practices in other large school districts, where early tracking is rare and advanced instruction is provided once children demonstrate readiness. By prioritising universal early education and delaying acceleration, Mamdani’s plan seeks to reduce inequities while still meeting the needs of high-achieving students.
Reactions from parents and educatorsResponses to the proposal have been sharply divided. Some parents and advocacy groups worry that removing gifted programs could deprive advanced learners of essential support and drive families toward alternative schools. They argue that acceleration at a young age is crucial for nurturing talent and maintaining diversity within public schools.

On the other hand, educators and equity advocates supporting Mamdani’s plan emphasise the benefits of allowing children more time to develop. They argue that early standardised testing often reflects access to resources rather than innate ability and that delayed acceleration, coupled with later evaluation, can provide a more equitable approach to identifying and supporting gifted students. Many support assessing all students for advanced learning opportunities starting in third grade or beyond, rather than segregating them in kindergarten.
Gifted programs and the national equity debateThe debate over gifted kindergarten programs in New York City touches on larger questions about balancing equity and excellence in public education. Policymakers nationwide are grappling with similar challenges: how to provide for advanced learners while ensuring historically marginalised students have access to the same opportunities.

Mamdani’s opponents, including Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa, argue for expanding access to gifted programs for underrepresented students rather than eliminating early acceleration. This underscores a recurring tension in education policy: whether to reform existing programs for equity or to remove them entirely in pursuit of fairness.

Experts note that the outcome of this debate could influence education policy beyond New York City. Districts across the country are observing how large urban school systems manage early tracking, standardised testing, and equitable access to high-quality instruction. The lessons learned in NYC may guide other districts seeking to balance academic rigour with fairness.
Looking aheadIf Mamdani’s plan is enacted, the next steps will be critical. Providing universally accessible, high-quality early education and developing effective strategies for later-stage acceleration will determine whether the city can achieve both equity and academic excellence. The proposal aims to dismantle systemic barriers without depriving advanced learners of appropriate challenges, but its success will depend on careful implementation and ongoing assessment.

Ultimately, the debate over gifted kindergartens in New York City highlights a fundamental question in education: how to nurture all students’ potential without perpetuating inequity. As policymakers, educators, and families weigh the options, the city’s choices, as reported by The New York Times, may offer a blueprint for districts nationwide striving to create public schools that are both excellent and fair.