摘要：4岁测试、教师推荐、抽签录取……纽约市的“资优教育”为何争议不断？从高风险的幼儿测试到如今的摇号选拔，这座大都市始终在“公平”与“精英”之间艰难摇摆。为什么黑人、拉丁裔和低收入家庭的孩子始终在项目中占比偏低？幼儿园开始分流是否太早？取消项目还是扩大规模——我们
有趣灵魂说
4岁测试、教师推荐、抽签录取……纽约市的“资优教育”为何争议不断？从高风险的幼儿测试到如今的摇号选拔，这座大都市始终在“公平”与“精英”之间艰难摇摆。为什么黑人、拉丁裔和低收入家庭的孩子始终在项目中占比偏低？幼儿园开始分流是否太早？取消项目还是扩大规模——我们是否陷入了非此即彼的思维陷阱？这篇报道带你走进纽约资优教育的困局，看一座城市如何试图破解“谁算资优”这道无解之题。译文为原创，仅供个人学习使用
The New York Times ｜纽约时报
Schools Grapple With a Hard Problem: Who Is Gifted?
学校正⾯临⼀道难题：谁算“资优”
New York decides which 4-year-olds should be designated “gifted.” Many experts think that’s too young.
纽约要决定哪些4岁⼉童能被标注为“资优”，许多专家认为这为时过早。
By James Barron
Ariana Drehsler for The New York Times
阿丽亚娜·德雷斯勒摄 / 纽约时报
早上好｡今天是星期⼆｡今天我们来看看学区在“资优”项⽬上持续碰到的难题｡
对学区而言，第一道难题，是要不要开设资优教育项目；如果要开，该让谁进入。全国范围内，引发争议最大的录取体系，出现在纽约市 (New York City)。一些家长认为不公平；研究也指出，这套体系容易产生偏差 (bias)。我请负责纽约教育报道的特洛伊·克洛森 (Troy Closson) 来谈谈：为什么“ 资优与天才 (gifted and talented) ”项目的问题，这么难改。
纽约过去会给4岁儿童做测试。现在改为由老师提名他们认为有天赋的学龄前儿童，再用抽签 (lottery) 的方式决定录取。这套做法有效吗？
我反复采访时，纽约一次次被当作反面教材。几乎没有专家认为，给4岁儿童上一道高瞻远瞩试 (high-stakes test) 是对的；也几乎没有专家认为，只靠老师推荐就是对的。
当前的体系，纳入面试官，受益的学生少于本可受益的人数。而且，不清楚多数项目究竟是否真的为资优儿童提供了不同的学习体验，还是只是把他们分出来，再给一些额外拓展。举例说，一些学区资优班与普通班用不同课程；而纽约通常使用相同课程。
纽约“资优与天才”项目
Gifted Talented, GT
纽约市公立小学阶段面向学业能力显著超前儿童的加速/强化课程体系，分为学区（District）GT 班与全市（Citywide）GT 学校两类。 学区 GT：设在部分普通小学内，只招本学区学生，学校内与普通班并存。 全市 GT（Citywide）：5 所“全 GT”学校，面向全市五区招生（无学区优先），所有班级都是 GT。学校包括 NEST+m、TAG Young Scholars、The Anderson School、Brooklyn School of Inquiry、30th Avenue School（Q300）。入学年级与基本机制
入学节点：主要在幼升小（K）与 1–4 年级补录；5 年级无统一申请通道（视席位与成绩安排）。 资格与申请：家长在 MySchools 或家庭服务中心提交 GT 申请；教育局按当年标准认定“具备资格”的学生，再按可用席位发放录取。 分配方式：当合格人数 > 席位时，采用摇号/优先规则（不同校别可能设置兄弟姐妹在读等优先）。近年政策演变
过去：长期依赖对 4 岁幼儿的统一测试选拔（饱受“过早分流”与公平性争议）。 2021–2023 起：测试取消 → 更依赖教师推荐、成绩/表现与摇号，合格比例显著上升，但席位仍稀缺。 近两年：在市长 Adams 推动下，扩容、增加三年级起点；同时围绕是否应保留/如何改制的政策辩论与法律诉讼仍在（包括近期诉讼被驳回与政界提案）。那为什么纽约还在用这套体系？
二十多年来，黑人 (Black)、拉丁裔 (Latino) 和低收入学生入读比例偏低，一直是纽约难以解决的问题。
迈克尔·布隆伯格（Michael Bloomberg）任内，把 4 岁测试推成高赌注，想解决这个问题，结果更糟。
比尔·德布拉西奥（Bill de Blasio）曾考虑取消资优项目，引发家长反弹——他们担心高成就的孩子缺乏挑战。
埃里克·亚当斯（Eric Adams）上任后，开放了数十个从三年级起步的新资优项目。这帮助改变了人群构成（demographics），但黑人、拉丁裔和低收入儿童依然明显代表性不足，与他们在系统中的总体占比相比差距不小。
纽约将在一月份迎来新市长。两位领先候选人打算如何变？
两位都很少谈细节。
佐赫兰·曼达尼（Zohran Mamdani）认为，幼儿园（kindergarten）就把孩子分入资优项目大早；他主张逐步取消幼儿园起步的路径，同时保留三年级起步的独立资优轨道。
安德鲁·科莫（Andrew Cuomo）持相反观点。他认为那是错误；他希望增加名额，并继续从 5 岁开始录取。
幼儿园太早？三年级又太晚？
这正是专家也拿不准的问题。许多学区至少等到二年级。极少从幼儿园就开始。
为什么？
孩子入学时能力差异很大。很多学区会先用一两年给所有孩子打基础，再去识别表现优异者。
全国不少学区会跨年级持续发掘资优儿童，设置多次入口。也有学区给学生在优势学科上安排更高阶课程，或把拔尖内容融入每所学校。
即便在布朗克斯（Bronx）最贫困的学校里，也有表现领先的学生，他们需要更高强度的学习。
纽约这方面做得不多。这限制了本地资优体系的有效性，也让这场争论格外尖锐。
纽约接下来该怎么走？什么路子更可行？
我采访时反复出现的一点是：大家习惯用 二元选项 看问题——要么取消项目，要么扩张项目。
但下一任市长，需要把资优教育当作一个系统去看，去思考：怎样从根本上让本市的高阶学习，更有益于孩子。
在纽约，约 5%的学生就读于资优项目。这个比例几十年来几乎没变。有人问：在全球最有活力的城市之一，为什么我们会觉得只有 5%的孩子需要更多的挑战？
许多专家认为，下一任市长需要跳出历届做法，确保所有孩子在需要挑战的时候，都能得到挑战。◾
有趣灵魂注：
二元选项（binary choice / dichotomous thinking）通常指的是是把复杂问题硬塞进“非此即彼”的两个格子里：对/错、好/坏、支持/反对。这就是“二元选项”。 在认知心理学中称为二分式（黑白）思维 (dichotomous thinking)：用两个极端类别来理解本应连续或多维的问题，易造成判断偏差。在逻辑与论证里，对应虚假两难/错误三分 (false dilemma)：把选项说成只有 A 或 B，忽略第三种或更多可行解。在产品/问卷设计中，二元题 (如 Yes/No) 是题型；若用于复杂态度测量，可能失真。 “二元选项”是把复杂世界简化为非此即彼的心智捷径——快，但容易错。应当用刻度、维度、条件与替代方案把“灰度”找回来。Good morning. It’s Tuesday. Today we’ll look at the continuing challenges that school systems face with programs for “gifted” students.
One challenge for school systems is deciding whether to have gifted education programs and, if so, which students should be given places in them. Nowhere has an admissions system touched off more national controversy than in New York City, where some parents say the system is unfair and research indicates that it could be prone to bias. I asked Troy Closson, who covers education in New York, to discuss why it’s so hard to fix the problems with “gifted and talented” programs.
New York used to give 4-year-olds a test. Now the teachers nominate preschoolers they think are talented, and the selections are made by lottery. How well is that working?
Time and time again in the interviews I did, New York came up again as an example of what not to do. There are few experts who say that the high-stakes test for 4-year-olds was the right approach, and there are few experts who say that solely relying on teacher recommendation is the right approach. The current system brings in a smaller number of students than would benefit, and it’s unclear whether a majority of the programs are really giving gifted kids a different learning experience or just separating them and offering some extra enrichment. Some districts don’t use the same curriculum in gifted classes that they use in their general classes, for example, but New York generally does.
So why does New York still have this system?
For more than two decades, the issue of low Black, Latino and low-income enrollment has been a problem that the city has struggled to solve.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg moved to the high-stakes test for 4-year-olds as an effort to fix that problem, but it made it worse.
Mayor Bill de Blasio discussed eliminating the gifted program, which sparked a backlash from parents who worried their high-achieving kids wouldn’t be challenged, and Mayor Adams opened dozens of new gifted programs that start in third grade.
That has helped to change the demographics, but Black, Latino and lowincome kids are still significantly underrepresented compared with their overall enrollment in the system.
New York will have a new mayor in January. How would the two leading candidates change things?
Both said little in detail about their plans. Zohran Mamdani has argued that starting to separate kids into gifted programs in kindergarten is too early, and he wants to phase out the city’s current kindergarten track while keeping a separate gifted track that begins in third grade. Andrew Cuomo, on the other hand, has said that’s a mistake. He wants to add more seats to gifted programs across the city while still starting to admit students as early as 5 years old.
Is kindergarten too early and third grade too late to start children in gifted programs?
That is a question experts struggle with. Many districts wait until at least second grade. Very few start at kindergarten.
Why is that?
Students enter school with different skills. Some districts spend a couple of years building skills for all children and assessing who the highest performers are after that.
Many districts across the country are constantly looking for gifted kids across grades, so there are many entry points into these programs. There are districts that give students advanced coursework in their best subjects, or incorporate it into every school. Even in the poorest school in the Bronx, there are students who are performing above their classmates and would benefit from more rigor. New York is doing few of those things. It limits the effectiveness of the giftedand- talented system here and is part of the reason this debate is so contentious.
Where does New York go from here? What do you think will work?
What came up in a lot of my interviews is that it’s always easier to look at binary solutions to a problem — remove a program or expand it.
But the next mayor is going to have to look at gifted education as a system and think about how to fundamentally make the city’s approach to advanced education more beneficial to children.
About 5 percent of students in New York are enrolled in gifted programs. That’s been the case for the last few decades. One person I interviewed asked why in one of the world’s most dynamic cities do we think that only 5 percent of the kids need more. Many experts say that the next mayor will need to think beyond what past administrations have tried to ensure that all children are challenged when they need a challenge.
来源：左右图史
