From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

He plans to phase out the Gifted and Talented program in New York schools


New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani has a bold plan for the cityrCOs
schools: phase out the Gifted and Talented program in elementary
education. His rationale is that these programs create disparities and
feed inequality.

ItrCOs a familiar progressive argument. If some students are excelling,
others must be suffering. If a child is recognized as gifted, itrCOs
unfair to those who arenrCOt. The logic is as simple as it is destructive: equality means sameness, even if sameness means mediocrity.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing giftedness. In fact, itrCOs common sense. If a child demonstrates unusual ability in math, science,
writing, or the arts, you nurture it. You donrCOt bury it under a
misguided notion of rCLequity.rCY Excellence, like athletic talent, must be cultivated. No one suggests we should stop training promising young
athletes because not every child can make varsity. Yet in academics,
this kind of reasoning now passes as justice.

MamdanirCOs proposal rests on a zero-sum view of education: if gifted
students are challenged, average or struggling students are deprived.
But reality says otherwise. The failure of struggling students has
little to do with the success of gifted ones and everything to do with
broken leadership, failing priorities and an education bureaucracy that confuses slogans for solutions.

Worse, eliminating gifted programs doesnrCOt remove inequality; it cements
it. Wealthy parents will always find ways to give their children an edge
rCo through tutoring, test prep, extracurriculars, or private schools.
ItrCOs the working-class family, the immigrant striver, the ambitious
child from a modest neighborhood, who loses the most when public
pathways for talent are shut down. MamdanirCOs policy would not reduce inequality; it would entrench it.

Of course, defenders of his plan will say New York is already taking
steps to help struggling students. And to some degree, theyrCOre right.
The city has launched NYC Reads, a phonics-based literacy initiative
designed to reverse years of damage caused by failed reading
instruction. It has trained literacy coaches and rolled out new programs
to engage parents. Nonprofits and community groups also step in with
tutoring and mentorship programs. These efforts matter rCo and they are a
good start.

But notice whatrCOs missing. Schools still donrCOt give teachers systematic flexibility to intervene when students start falling behind across
subjects. Mentorship and tutoring programs exist, but they arenrCOt scaled
to reach every struggling child who needs one. And schools rarely
celebrate excellence outside the narrow band of standardized tests. A
student with a gift for music, or technical trades, or entrepreneurship
is too often left in the shadows.

This is where conservatives can make a real difference: by insisting
that fairness doesnrCOt mean dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It means raising the floor without lowering the ceiling. It
means holding onto gifted programs for those who excel, while building
new ladders for those who struggle.

Schools should focus on fundamentals. Every child deserves mastery in
reading and math. Early phonics-based literacy and basic numeracy are
the non-negotiable building blocks of opportunity.

Teachers should be trusted and given the flexibility to intervene when a student is falling behind, rather than chaining them to rigid, top-down mandates.

Families should be engaged. Strong families remain the greatest
equalizer in education. Encourage parents to read with children,
reinforce discipline, and support homework routines.

Mentorship and tutoring should be expanded. Churches, civic groups and nonprofits should be scaled up so no struggling student is left without support.

And excellence of all kinds should be celebrated. Not every child will
ace calculus, but some will thrive in the arts, athletics, or skilled
trades. Schools should dignify these gifts as much as test scores.

The tragedy of MamdanirCOs proposal is that it reflects a growing cultural fatigue with excellence itself. We live in a moment where fairness is
too often defined not by how high the ceiling is, but by how low we can
drag it. The logic is perverse: if some shine brighter, then all must be dimmed.

But dimming the brightest lights does not make the room fairer. It makes
the whole room darker.

Excellence is not the enemy of equity. Real fairness comes when we allow
the child who may one day cure cancer to reach his full potential, while ensuring the child who struggles with reading has every chance to catch
up. Both deserve cultivation. Both deserve dignity. And both require
rejecting the politics of mediocrity.

New YorkrCOs future rCo and AmericarCOs rCo depends on it.


David Sypher Jr.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

On Oct 5, 2025 at 4:07:15rC>PM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:

He plans to phase out the Gifted and Talented program in New York schools

New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani has a bold plan for the cityrCOs
schools: phase out the Gifted and Talented program in elementary
education. His rationale is that these programs create disparities and
feed inequality.

ItrCOs a familiar progressive argument. If some students are excelling, others must be suffering. If a child is recognized as gifted, itrCOs
unfair to those who arenrCOt. The logic is as simple as it is destructive: equality means sameness, even if sameness means mediocrity.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing giftedness. In fact, itrCOs common sense. If a child demonstrates unusual ability in math, science,
writing, or the arts, you nurture it. You donrCOt bury it under a
misguided notion of rCLequity.rCY Excellence, like athletic talent, must be cultivated. No one suggests we should stop training promising young
athletes because not every child can make varsity. Yet in academics,
this kind of reasoning now passes as justice.

MamdanirCOs proposal rests on a zero-sum view of education: if gifted students are challenged, average or struggling students are deprived.
But reality says otherwise. The failure of struggling students has
little to do with the success of gifted ones and everything to do with
broken leadership, failing priorities and an education bureaucracy that confuses slogans for solutions.

Worse, eliminating gifted programs doesnrCOt remove inequality; it cements it. Wealthy parents will always find ways to give their children an edge
rCo through tutoring, test prep, extracurriculars, or private schools.
ItrCOs the working-class family, the immigrant striver, the ambitious
child from a modest neighborhood, who loses the most when public
pathways for talent are shut down. MamdanirCOs policy would not reduce inequality; it would entrench it.

Of course, defenders of his plan will say New York is already taking
steps to help struggling students. And to some degree, theyrCOre right.
The city has launched NYC Reads, a phonics-based literacy initiative
designed to reverse years of damage caused by failed reading
instruction. It has trained literacy coaches and rolled out new programs
to engage parents. Nonprofits and community groups also step in with
tutoring and mentorship programs. These efforts matter rCo and they are a good start.

But notice whatrCOs missing. Schools still donrCOt give teachers systematic flexibility to intervene when students start falling behind across
subjects. Mentorship and tutoring programs exist, but they arenrCOt scaled
to reach every struggling child who needs one. And schools rarely
celebrate excellence outside the narrow band of standardized tests. A
student with a gift for music, or technical trades, or entrepreneurship
is too often left in the shadows.

This is where conservatives can make a real difference: by insisting
that fairness doesnrCOt mean dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It means raising the floor without lowering the ceiling. It means holding onto gifted programs for those who excel, while building
new ladders for those who struggle.

Schools should focus on fundamentals. Every child deserves mastery in
reading and math. Early phonics-based literacy and basic numeracy are
the non-negotiable building blocks of opportunity.

Teachers should be trusted and given the flexibility to intervene when a student is falling behind, rather than chaining them to rigid, top-down mandates.

Families should be engaged. Strong families remain the greatest
equalizer in education. Encourage parents to read with children,
reinforce discipline, and support homework routines.

Mentorship and tutoring should be expanded. Churches, civic groups and nonprofits should be scaled up so no struggling student is left without support.

And excellence of all kinds should be celebrated. Not every child will
ace calculus, but some will thrive in the arts, athletics, or skilled
trades. Schools should dignify these gifts as much as test scores.

The tragedy of MamdanirCOs proposal is that it reflects a growing cultural fatigue with excellence itself. We live in a moment where fairness is
too often defined not by how high the ceiling is, but by how low we can
drag it. The logic is perverse: if some shine brighter, then all must be dimmed.

But dimming the brightest lights does not make the room fairer. It makes
the whole room darker.

Excellence is not the enemy of equity. Real fairness comes when we allow
the child who may one day cure cancer to reach his full potential, while ensuring the child who struggles with reading has every chance to catch
up. Both deserve cultivation. Both deserve dignity. And both require rejecting the politics of mediocrity.

New YorkrCOs future rCo and AmericarCOs rCo depends on it.

David Sypher Jr.

This is excellent! I Give David Sypher Jr. a Gold Star.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2