Disclaimer: This article was largely written before the NYC mayoral election took place. This is an opinion piece; all views described in this article are purely representative of the author.

You’ve probably heard many of Zohran Mamdani’s policies. Freeze the rent! Make buses free! Free childcare! Punchy, easy-to-understand slogans have been a key part of Mamdani’s campaign. But there’s one important issue Zohran Mamdani has been shockingly quiet about: education. 

Schools in NYC have significant problems. Only 28% of fourth graders were proficient in reading in 2024, and just 33% were proficient in math. Despite this, K–12 education has only a single 168 word paragraph on Mamdani’s website (60 words of which are actually about university policies, not K–12), while other issues get multi-page long policy memos and in-depth videos. In contrast, Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s main opponent during the election has 28 pages about his education policy. When Mamdani was asked by The City about how he would deal with low scores, he said that he would “stay on the current course, since scores are gradually improving.” An unambitious answer at best, an inexcusably neglectful one at worst. Most of Mamdani’s education policies are based around things like making sure streets around schools are safe, and reducing student homelessness, rather than on the actual education taking place in schools. These are important goals, but they’re not going to solve the underlying issues plaguing education in this city. However, there is one group of policies Mamdani supports that directly affects the classroom: reducing programs for high performing students.

Mamdani has long flirted with anti-excellence policies. Despite being a Bronx Science alumnus, he has previously supported abolishing the SHSAT (though he has said he changed his mind during his campaign). More recently, he said that he would abolish Gifted and Talented (G&T) programs—elementary school programs that provide accelerated learning—between kindergarten and 3rd grade. Additionally, in an interview with Chalkbeat, he stated that as mayor, he would implement the recommendations of a 2019 advisory group, which suggested ending G&T programs altogether, ending screens for middle schools, and placing a moratorium on new screened high schools. (A screened school is any school that has academic criteria for admissions, whether that’s grades, essays, auditions or something else.) All of these proposals have the same effect; they make it more difficult, or even impossible for students to take advantage of high quality programs.

I believe that this is seriously misguided and harmful. To understand why we need to take a closer look at these programs, the first question to answer is this: Do these programs actually work? The answer is a resounding yes. According to a 2024 NYC DOE study, students in G&T programs showed “significant gains in middle school English language arts and math proficiency.” When it comes to high schools, screens also improve outcomes. According to US News and World Report, which ranks high schools based on data like state assessments and college readiness, 28 out of the top 30 public schools in the city utilize screens. Meanwhile citywide, only about 40% of high schools have screens.

There already aren’t enough screened high schools, and placing a moratorium on new ones will only make things worse. High school admissions in New York are heavily based on a lottery system, where luck determines priority for seats. This is fundamentally unfair. Two students with similar academic records should be able to get into similar schools, and the fact that a lottery system is necessary is proof that there are more talented students than the current system can support.

Critics of these programs often point out that the student bodies of these programs aren’t representative of the city, with disproportionately high rates of white and wealthy students, and disproportionately low rates of low income, Hispanic, and Black students. This is true, but the solution isn’t to kneecap these programs. Saying that we should end advanced curriculum programs because not enough low income and minority students are getting in is a bit like Donald Trump saying that if the United States stopped testing for COVID-19, there would no longer be any cases. It works on paper but does nothing to solve the actual issues. There’s no reason to believe that it would improve academic outcomes for disadvantaged students—in fact, it might worsen them. The same study that showed improvements in scores for students in G&T programs found that “Black and Hispanic students showed the largest increase in academic proficiency scores after participating in the Gifted and Talented program.” In the 2023–24 school year, 47% of students in G&T programs came from low income families. For screened high schools, that figure was 66%, while more than half of students were Black or Hispanic. Low income students are often uniquely reliant on these programs. While wealthier New Yorkers can afford to pay for expensive tutoring or selective private schools, low income New Yorkers can often only get what the public school system offers. Removing some of the most successful programs will make it harder for low income students to get academic opportunities.

Most importantly, these programs allow students to feel engaged and supported in their learning. Take Mamdani’s plan to end G&T programs entirely between kindergarten and third grade. Kindergarteners have wildly varying levels of academic ability. Some can read basic chapter books, while others can’t read at all. Some can do basic addition and subtraction, while others can’t count past ten. This type of variance exists in all academic settings. Programs for advanced learners allow everyone to be taught to their ability, and give all students the chance to be engaged with their curriculum and nurture their curiosity. The purpose of school is for students to learn, and the only way for all students to learn is by offering instruction at various levels.

This issue is deeply personal to me. Before I came to HSMSE, I found nearly all my classes uninteresting and dull. This had a much greater effect on me than just being bored: I felt apathetic and constantly tired. My mental health degraded and I had mood disorders; I had difficulty making friends and forming connections with people. Now, I’m actually interested and engaged with my classes. I look forward to coming to school every day and spending time with my friends. I’m happier and doing better than ever. I know how deeply important it is for students to take classes that meet them where they’re at, and I know I’m not alone. Students at HSMSE understand how important it is for these programs to be offered: “I think [advanced curriculum] exposes students to what they’re capable of,” said Lina Hobert (’28). “If you limit kids from getting resources that allow them to think harder and expand their learning, you’re stopping them from reaching their potential.” 

The end of advanced curriculum will be a tragedy for all NYC students. The New York City Council must take action to protect these programs, and ensure that the next generation of students will be able to receive opportunity, success, and above all, the chance to be interested and engaged while in school.