Across many school systems, gifted and talented programs are being discontinued in schools that serve low-income communities. Education researcher Michael Petrilli contends that this shift leaves “kids who are poor but academically gifted” to endure the worst of both worlds.
Why are districts moving away from separating students by ability?
To address “inequity.”
“This is so misguided,” Petrilli argues in a recent video feature. “These equity advocates say, ‘Oh, we’re against gifted education.’ Yet they also lament that colleges aren’t diverse enough. Guess what? The advocates for equity play a substantial role in the problem. They block students of color and those from low-income families from receiving what they need at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to compete.”
Distinct tracks have not always been a flashpoint for debate. In the past, standardized testing was followed by placing pupils on different academic paths.
“It’s incredibly difficult to teach reading effectively if some students don’t even know the alphabet while others are reading advanced novels,” Petrilli notes.
The pivot away from tracking began in 1985 after education theorist Jeannie Oakes published Keeping Track, a work that argued tracking contributed to racially segregated classrooms.
Rather than placing students into fixed tracks, teachers are now encouraged to use “differentiated instruction”—adjusting teaching methods and expectations to fit each learner’s level.
“Differentiating instruction!” Petrilli quips. “As if you could somehow scan a room of 30 students and teach them all at once… That mindset spurred a large anti-tracking movement and a broad push to abandon ability grouping, advocating that students should be mixed together in classrooms at all times.”
I observe that affluence can enable families to hire tutors, and as a consequence, “disproportionate numbers of White and Asian students end up receiving that fast-track education.”
“But the issue isn’t predominantly about race,” Petrilli responds. “It’s primarily about class, family structure, and culture.”
“Many Asian students came from severe poverty and still excel,” I remark.
“Regardless of poverty levels, culture and family dynamics matter…a great deal,” he agrees. “Where this has been curtailed is largely in the nation’s poorest neighborhoods. There, you have students who are poor yet academically gifted, and they bear the burden of both disadvantages.”
In New York City, former Mayor Bill de Blasio eliminated the gifted-test mechanism, arguing that educators should recommend which students are accelerated. Activists countered that the tests “exclude kids because they’re poor.”
Yet Petrilli counters with data: “There’s substantial evidence that recommendations are biased, while tests tend to be far less biased.”
That assessment is supported by a National Bureau of Economic Research study showing that universal screening significantly increases the enrollment of economically disadvantaged students and minorities in gifted programs.
When should tracking begin?
Current mayor Zohran Mamdani has proposed removing gifted classes before third grade.
“It’s a reasonable idea,” Petrilli concedes, “but we must ensure there is a path for highly advanced youngsters from the start—children in kindergarten who arrive with advanced abilities. It does not benefit anyone if students arrive at school and sit bored because nothing new is being taught.”
I attempted to speak with anti-tracking advocates to understand why they prioritize racial equity so highly over allowing bright students to thrive. Not a single group we approached agreed to participate.
Today’s ideologues rarely welcome a dialogue with the other side.
COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
