At the end of August Mayor Bill de Blasio got the recommendation from his School Diversity Advisory Group: desegregate New York City schools by eliminating most gifted programs.

I teach a self-contained class in our district’s highly-capable (HC) program. The news from NYC certainly caught my attention.

“The panel recommended that the city replace gifted and screened schools with new magnet schools — which have been used in other cities to attract a diverse group of students interested in a particular subject matter — along with enrichment programs that are open to students with varying academic abilities.”

Understand, NYC has the biggest school district in the country. They also occupy a reasonably small geographic area with absolutely amazing public transportation running all day long. (When I lived in upstate New York, students could attend any school in the area and ride public transportation for free.) Moving to magnet schools all across their district is more feasible for them than in many districts.

However, both of the New York panel’s recommendations, for magnet schools and enrichment programs, are just vague outlines thrown out there. They are lacking in any details. (Gut what exists. Replace with something. Eventually. Design details to follow.)

First, I want to point out how NYC schools operate differently from what the Washington State Coalition for Gifted recommends and what our state requires. In New York City, they test kindergarten students using a standardized admission exam. “At the elementary school level, students can qualify for the Department of Education’s gifted and talented programs by taking a single standardized exam, starting in Kindergarten.” Students can be in the gifted program permanently based on that one test!

Parents who can afford it pay tutors to prepare their preschool students for the test. Of course, many parents can’t afford tutoring. And thus, the segregation begins.

Also, New York City parents nominate their child for testing. “Savvy parents” are more likely to do the work of filling out the nomination forms for testing their child for gifted programs, paving the way for their child to have opportunities that other children might miss.

In Washington the Gifted Coalition has fought long and hard for universal testing “by the end of second grade” when the test results are far more likely to be valid. And our state law now requires an identification process that uses multiple data points. Our districts aren’t allowed to rely on a single test. By the way, the Coalition also got the state to change the law so we no long talk about “nominations” in Washington. We talk about “referrals”—just like referrals to Special Ed or any other student support. Parent or teacher referrals might be considered as one of the multiple data points in the identification process in our state, but they are not the gatekeeper, allowing or denying entrance.

Best case scenario? Each district in Washington observes and monitors K-1 students, identifying truly high-fliers (not just early readers). By the end of second grade, the district does a universal screening (at school and during the school day) so every student in the district is reviewed by the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT). Then the MDT looks at additional data from every child who scores high on that initial screening, including (potentially) referrals from parents and/or teachers, before making decisions about placement in Highly Capable programs. Finally, the MDT should also review data of students entering middle school to see if there is anyone who might have been missed at a younger age.

Second, let’s just take a moment to acknowledge the vast difference between meeting the needs of exceptional students and providing enrichment. The first and most important need for truly gifted students is quality time with their intellectual peers. Second, they need increased depth and complexity. Third, they need a faster pace.

Here is what is being suggested as on alternative to that type of holistic gifted classroom in NYC:  “For younger children, that could mean setting up small groups of students who are pulled out of their classrooms to learn the basics of photography.”

I wholeheartedly support enrichment options—like photography—being offered to all elementary students. Who wouldn’t love that? But don’t confuse that with a rigorous program of advanced academics.

My fifth graders have to complete a Classroom-Based Assessment in social studies, just like any other fifth grade students. But I model their projects on a 7th grade CBA and on National History Day projects (NHD is open to students in 6-12th grades). They learn to follow MLA format guidelines for their written work, including their “List of Works Consulted” for their CBA. (You might have used the MLA handbook in high school or college.) My goal is to start preparing them for the kind of writing they will do in high school and college.

Enrichment class? Not quite.

The goal of the School Diversity Advisory Group was desegregation. May I suggest, a better goal would be equity. By that, I mean every student gets the education they need.

Some fifth-grade students need extra help in learning how to read. Some fifth-grade students need extra help in answering specific questions about integers or even quadratic equations.

Some students need small group work on phonics.

Some need large group discussions on topics like geopolitics in the American colonies or economic theories in the 20th century.

Give students what they need. Including robust gifted education programs.