One cheer for New York City’s efforts on advanced education
Mayor Eric Adams is on the right track and deserves praise for rescuing advanced programming from the abyss. But in its current form, the city's system falls short.
When former mayor Bill de Blasio promised to dismantle New York City’s gifted education programs, then-candidate Eric Adams laudably promised to save, reform and expand them. Since taking the helm, however, his actual policies and actions deserve scant praise—middling improvements paired with major regressions.
Earlier this year, for example, the Adams team expanded the number of sites for gifted education at the elementary level but scrapped the use of tests as a screening component—despite ample research supporting their use—and made school grades the sole determinant for inclusion. It then set the standards so low that two-thirds of students qualify for services, making the eligible range of achievement levels so wide that the programs are now “gifted” in name only: They can no longer feature the increased pacing and rigor that makes gifted education worthwhile.
Taken together, hizzoner’s changes have transformed gifted education in the lower grades into a glorified lottery based on the wrong measures, with students earning the best grades no likelier to win seats as those who barely make the cutoff.
As for high schools, the mayor did great work by creating three new selective schools that will open this fall—reducing needless scarcity. But that work is incomplete, as demand still far exceeds supply, forcing lotteries to operate here, as well.
To Adams’s credit, he clearly recognizes how much we risk if we’re cavalier with the education of America’s top-performing students. He understands that we need advanced learners to be highly educated to ensure our long-term competitiveness, security, and innovation. He also inherited a situation that was confusing, contentious, and headed towards abolition. Resurrecting it alone warrants applause—and may reverberate elsewhere.
Because of its size and cultural footprint, New York City models policy for countless other school systems, directs curriculum and textbook sellers, and influences education debates around the country.
And our country is in need of a stellar model in the realm of advanced learning. Years ago—immediately following Sputnik, for example—the U.S. took it seriously. But half a century of education policies have shoved it to the side, even to a place of skepticism and derision. Only two-thirds of districts offer any such programming, for instance, and in many places that do offer it, services are nothing more than meager supplements that are unlikely to make much of a difference in their students’ achievement, and are staffed with teachers who have not been trained to educate bright students.
In pursuit of a roadmap for districts across the land to do a better job of educating their advanced learners, a working group of diverse education experts—including one of us—convened last year to develop a report that summarizes the research on gifted education and recommends best practices. Its analysis suggests that New York City faces three big but solvable problems in this realm: the process for screening students is prone to bias and error, the programming in the city is needlessly all or nothing, and gifted services are far too scarce.
To solve problem one, the city should screen every single student in its schools using not only teacher-conferred grades, but also data from state standardized tests. Doing this in every grade for every child, instead of relying on a single age-based screening point that students must opt into, is an empirically-grounded method to identify intellectually gifted children from all strata of society.
For problems two and three, Adams should expand the number of seats at the elementary level, open more selective high schools, and mandate that every middle school pupil in the city has access to advanced learning opportunities. In place of the city’s current dichotomous, you’re-in-or-you’re-out system where selective schools serve only a selective few, offer a “continuum of services”: separate schools or classrooms will be best for certain students, for example; in-class achievement grouping will suffice for others; and some should skip entire grades.
Mayor Adams is on the right track and deserves praise for rescuing advanced education from the abyss. They no doubt hope to eventually construct a gifted education system that serves every advanced student. But in its current form, the system falls short.
Note: The following elements of the newsletter were compiled by Brandon Wright, Advance’s editor.
QUOTE OF NOTE
“When California released a revised draft of the math framework last year, I decided someone should read the whole thing, so I dove in. Sometimes, as I pored over the CMF, I could scarcely believe what I was reading. The document cited research that hadn’t been peer-reviewed; justified sweeping generalizations by referencing small, tightly focused studies or even unrelated research; and described some papers as reaching nearly the opposite conclusions from what they actually say.”
—“Brian Conrad, “California’s math misadventure is about to go national,” The Atlantic, October 2, 2023
RESEARCH REVIEW
“The Major Characteristics and Trends of Gifted Education Doctoral Dissertation Research From 2006 Through 2016,” by Hyeseong Lee and Marcia Gentry, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, published online September 13, 2023
“This study features a content analysis of gifted education doctoral dissertation studies from 2006 through 2016 (n = 683) to identify the characteristics and shifts of the field. The major topics of the studies were categorized into the National Association for Gifted Children’s 16 networks and compared with the future directions suggested by the State of the States in Gifted Education report to locate the gaps between research and practical needs. The findings of this study not only outline gifted education’s significant features and trends but also provide an understanding of the evolving nature and insights of the field such as research methods, data sources, study participants, and journal publication rates.”
“Cultivating a Learning Environment to Support Diverse Gifted Students,” by Cindy M. Gilson and Lindsay E. Lee, Gifted Child Today, Volume 46, Issue 4, October 2023
“Educators have the responsibility to meet the academic, social, and emotional needs of every child in their care, including students who are gifted or high-achieving from diverse backgrounds. For gifted students to thrive in the differentiated classroom, teachers can consider the ways in which they establish and promote positive affective, physical, and digital learning environments. This article introduces the Reciprocal Learning Environments Model in which we describe four teacher actions based on research and recommended best practices from the field of gifted education to cultivate a more positive classroom culture conducive to differentiation.”
“South Korean Preservice Teachers’ Self-Perception as Gifted: Impact on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Toward Gifted Education,” Heejin Woo and Therese M. Cumming, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, published online September 8, 2023
“Teachers’ self-perception of their competence impacts their attitudes toward teaching, which in turn, influences both their practice and student outcomes. The goal of the current study is to explore South Korean preservice primary school teachers’ self-perception of being gifted and the relationship between their self-perception and self-efficacy in attitudes toward gifted education. This mixed-methods study includes a survey of 481 fourth-year South Korean preservice primary school teachers and follow-up focus group interviews with 13 of the survey participants. The survey results indicate that South Korean preservice teachers tend to not consider themselves as gifted. Also, the mean score of self-perception as gifted for the male preservice teachers was significantly higher than that of the female preservice teachers. Their self-perception as gifted was positively related to their self-efficacy in teaching gifted students and their tendency of seeing gifted education as elitist but negatively related to their support of gifted education.”
WRITING WORTH READING
“California’s math misadventure is about to go national,” The Atlantic, Brian Conrad, October 2, 2023
“Pennsylvania Department of Education announces new program to expand access to gifted education in the commonwealth,” MyChesCo, October 2, 2023
“Applying to NYC’s screened high schools? Selection criteria remains unchanged,” Chalkbeat New York, Julian Shen-Berro, September 28, 2023
“NC participation and scores on AP tests top pre-pandemic levels,” WUNC, Ann Doss Helms, September 28, 2023
“Pros and cons of the International Baccalaureate,” The Week, September 26, 2023
“Green Bay Area Public School District Board approves Gifted Learner Program to stay at Leonardo da Vinci School,” WBAY, Samantha Cavalli, September 25, 2023
“Finding ‘lost Einsteins’ means fixing K–5 science, especially in rural schools,” The 74, Jeanne McCarty, September 25, 2023
“Arkansas school’s program offers support for gifted seventh-graders,” Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Cynthia Howell, September 21, 2023
“Boca Raton preschool owner arrested in gifted student scam,” BocaNewsNow.com, Andrew Colton, September 15, 2023
This is absolutely right! As a mother of three children in a city wide G&T school, I feel that Adams' effort to expand the gifted and talented program bringing in 3rd grades top performers, and K students with "teacher's referrals" was a very bad idea. The education at these schools have declined so much, as you mentioned on your article G&T became a "name only". I had to take the role of a teacher and supplement school work at home with my children. Teachers cannot do anything, these were policies coming from the DOE, even though principals knew these children were not ready for this type of education they kept accepting children (also they need city funding). Last year when "top performers in 3rd grade" with (3&4) were accepted in city wide schools not even knowing how to spell held whole classes back in the learning process. K students with teacher referrals did not even speak English, teachers that were helping students 1 to 1 for reading or math, now had to teach English to some children. These children were not in any manner ready for accelerated education.
It is sad the city is such a chaos, politicians have corrupted everything even schools and this is the saddest part.