Mamdani’s Push to Scrap Gifted & Talented Program Rekindles Old NYC Education Wars

By: Carl Schwartzbaum

In the ever-shifting battleground of New York City’s public education system, Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani has opened a new front. The mayoral front-runner — and the Democratic nominee favored to succeed Eric Adams after his surprise withdrawal from the race — announced this week his intention to phase out the city’s Gifted and Talented (G&T) program at the kindergarten level.

The proposal, reported by both the New York Times and The New York Post on Thursday,  revives one of the most divisive debates in city education policy, echoing the turbulent tenure of former Mayor Bill de Blasio, who sought to dismantle the program before leaving office in 2021. His successor, Mayor Adams, restored and even expanded it, bowing to enormous parental demand. Mamdani, however, is prepared to undo Adams’ reforms, telling the Times: “I will return to the previous policy. Ultimately, my administration would aim to make sure that every child receives a high-quality early education that nurtures their curiosity and learning.”

For Mamdani, the announcement was cast as an equity measure. For his critics — and they are legion — it was another salvo in what the New York Post has often described as a campaign to erode pathways of opportunity for working- and middle-class families who rely on the public school system.

The Gifted and Talented program, first established in the 1970s, offers accelerated instruction for high-performing students, typically identified at an early age through standardized testing. In kindergarten, applicants as young as four years old take assessments that determine eligibility for the coveted slots. The demand far outstrips the supply: only about 2,500 incoming kindergartners are admitted each year, out of tens of thousands of applicants.

Supporters point to this scarcity as evidence of the program’s value. To them, G&T represents one of the few reliable pipelines for ambitious, academically inclined children — including many from immigrant and middle-income households — to secure a foothold in elite education. The New York Post has frequently chronicled the fierce competition for entry, as well as the relief of parents whose children make the cut.

But critics, including many progressive politicians and activists, argue that the system is inherently discriminatory. Because admission hinges on a single exam, and because white and Asian students disproportionately achieve top scores, opponents say the program reinforces racial disparities and tracks children into unequal educational futures before they even learn to tie their shoes.

This debate is not new, but Mamdani’s move has thrust it back into the city’s political spotlight at a particularly fraught moment.

Mamdani’s campaign spokesperson, Dora Pekec, confirmed to the New York Post that the candidate’s plan is to end kindergarten G&T classes beginning next fall, while allowing currently enrolled students to continue through the year. Over time, the phase-out would eliminate G&T offerings for grades K through 2, leaving advanced options available only from third grade onward.

“Zohran knows that five-year-olds should not be subjected to a singular assessment that unfairly separates them right at the beginning of their public school education,” Pekec said in a statement reported by the Post. “His agenda for our schools will ensure that every New York City public school student receives a high-quality early education that enables them to be challenged and fulfilled.”

The blueprint echoes de Blasio’s own end-of-term initiative, which sought to dismantle the exam-based G&T system and replace it with broader “accelerated learning” available in all classrooms. That policy was effectively reversed when Adams took office in 2022, citing overwhelming parental support for G&T. Mamdani’s revival of de Blasio’s model suggests that the city’s education pendulum is swinging yet again.

If Mamdani anticipated applause from progressives, he also ignited a backlash from across the political spectrum.

Danyela Souza, vice president of Community Education Council 2 in Manhattan and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, blasted the move in an interview with the New York Post. “Mamdani is eliminating opportunities for low- and middle-income students to access an advanced education,” she said. Souza, herself a public school parent, warned that the plan could spark an exodus from the city’s school system.

Her critique had a personal edge: Souza pointed out that Mamdani’s own parents sent him to the elite Bank Street School, where tuition runs up to $66,000 per year. “He’s taking away opportunities from families who are not as fortunate as his family,” she said. “It’s going to accelerate families leaving the city public school system.”

Other parental advocates voiced similar concerns. Yiatin Chu, co-president of Parent Leaders for Accelerated Curriculum and Education (PLACE), told the Post that Mamdani was “going in the wrong direction.” The program, she argued, is “popular” precisely because it provides bright children with the challenge they need.

“Mamdani wants to be de Blasio 2.0 — wanting to kill the gifted and talented program,” Chu said. “You’re removing a pathway for the brightest of our kids to be challenged. We should be expanding these programs, not eliminating them.”

Chu also cited demographic data that undercuts the “elitist” critique: many G&T students come from immigrant families who cannot afford private school tuition. “Why do we think every kid is the same?” she asked. “Parents are going to look to private schools or charter schools as an option, or they’re going to move out of the city. You have one chance to educate your child.”

Mamdani’s general election rivals wasted no time in joining the fray.

Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent, told the New York Post that the plan “perpetuates the problem” rather than solving it. “Eliminating opportunities for excellence doesn’t help underserved kids, it creates a false equality by eliminating any opportunity to excel,” Cuomo said. He stressed that the Democratic ideal had always been about expanding opportunities for marginalized students, not curtailing them.

Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa went further, vowing not only to preserve G&T but to expand it. At a press event covered by the Post, Sliwa reminded reporters that Mamdani himself had attended the prestigious Bronx High School of Science, which relies on a high-stakes entrance exam. “So he benefited from all that, but he wants to deprive young children who need advanced courses,” Sliwa said.

The irony was not lost on critics: Mamdani, a product of elite private schools and selective public institutions, is now pushing to dismantle the very system that propelled him to success.

The New York Post report noted that Mamdani’s education stance fits a larger ideological pattern. A self-identified socialist and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Mamdani has consistently favored policies that critics see as leveling down rather than lifting up. From free child care and free buses to his outspoken opposition to Israel, Mamdani has positioned himself as the champion of the left-wing insurgency.

The attack on G&T, Post columnists argue, reflects that same impulse: rather than expanding excellence, Mamdani would dilute it in the name of equality. For many New Yorkers — particularly working- and middle-class families without the means to pay for private schooling — that amounts to slamming the door shut on their children’s ambitions.

The numbers are stark. Kindergarten enrollment in New York City public schools has already plummeted by 15 percent in recent years, according to the report in the New York Post. The pandemic accelerated this decline, but so too have quality-of-life concerns, rising crime rates, and controversies over curriculum. Removing G&T could add another powerful push factor.

For families who remain in the city, the alternatives are limited: expensive private schools, competitive charter programs, or relocation to the suburbs. Each of these options carries costs — financial, social, and emotional — that fall disproportionately on families of modest means.

Souza’s warning about an exodus is not hypothetical. In 2022, when Adams initially considered tweaks to G&T, the Post reported a wave of parents openly mulling moves to Westchester, Long Island, or New Jersey. The elimination of kindergarten G&T could reignite that trend.

At its heart, the debate is not just about pedagogy but about political philosophy. Proponents of G&T believe in recognizing excellence early and nurturing it. Critics, like Mamdani, argue that sorting children at age four or five is unfair, discriminatory, and harmful to the collective.

This clash mirrors national debates over meritocracy, equity, and education policy. Should schools identify and reward high performers, even if disparities emerge along racial or economic lines? Or should they prioritize equity, even at the cost of high-achieving students?

For the New York Post, which has long championed meritocratic ideals, Mamdani’s plan is emblematic of progressive overreach: a policy that punishes strivers rather than uplifting the disadvantaged.

With the election just weeks away, the Gifted and Talented issue has become a defining wedge. Mamdani may have calculated that his progressive base will reward him for taking a bold stance against what activists call “educational apartheid.” But the backlash, as amplified in the New York Post report, suggests he may have underestimated the depth of parental attachment to the program.

Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa are likely to hammer the issue relentlessly in the coming weeks, framing Mamdani as out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary families. For Mamdani, the risk is not only electoral but symbolic: to many voters, scrapping G&T reads less like reform and more like sabotage.

The fate of New York City’s Gifted and Talented program has become a political litmus test. For Mamdani, abolishing kindergarten G&T is about fairness and equity. For his opponents — and for thousands of parents chronicled in the pages of the New York Post — it is about preserving opportunity and excellence.

As the city hurtles toward its next election, this clash over five-year-olds’ futures may prove decisive. In a metropolis already grappling with crime, affordability, and identity politics, the battle over G&T could be the one issue that crystallizes for voters the kind of city New York will become under its next mayor: a city that nurtures ambition, or one that levels it in the name of equality.