Staff Reports
John Stossel released a new video this week called “Un‑Gifted and Talented” that punches back at the push to end or shrink gifted and talented (G&T) programs in the name of “equity.” The piece features Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, warning that tossing ability grouping out the window will leave many advanced kids—especially in poor neighborhoods—bored and robbed of opportunity. This debate matters for parents, teachers, and every city that thinks fairness means forcing everyone into the same slow lane.
Stossel and Petrilli: Equity or Excuse?
“This is so misguided,” Petrilli tells Stossel, and he’s right to be blunt. The modern anti‑tracking movement started with good intentions: fix the way schools reproduced segregation. But somewhere along the way that argument became a one‑size‑fits‑all crusade to eliminate G&T classes rather than fix how kids are identified. In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has proposed ending K–2 entry into the city’s gifted pipeline and deferring meaningful identification until third grade. That sounds nice on a campaign flyer—but it leaves advanced kindergartners stuck in lessons that don’t challenge them.
Why ability grouping still matters
Teaching thirty kids at thirty different levels is not an ethical test of a teacher’s patience; it’s a math problem with no practical solution. Differentiated instruction is a useful tool—but it’s not magic. When schools abandon separate advanced classes, the students who lose out are not only the affluent ones who get private tutors; they’re also the gifted kids from poor families who need school to provide the push they won’t get at home. If we truly want both fairness and excellence, we should expand access to advanced work, not pretend a single mixed class will serve everyone well.
What the evidence actually shows
Good policy follows data, not slogans. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that universal screening for gifted programs substantially increased the number of economically disadvantaged students and minorities identified for advanced services compared with referral‑only systems. In short, tests—properly designed and applied—can expand access more than relying on teacher nominations alone. And since city G&T slots are a small slice of total enrollment, the right fix is universal screening plus accountability, not wholesale elimination.
If education leaders really care about opportunity, they will stop using “equity” as a cover for lowering standards and start using it to open doors. Mayor Mamdani and other officials should adopt universal screening, protect acceleration for young learners, and report whether reforms actually help disadvantaged gifted kids. Otherwise, we’ll keep pretending that mixing everyone together is the same as giving every child the chance to excel—and smart kids will keep paying the price while activists pat themselves on the back. That’s not fairness. It’s bureaucracy with a slogan.
