Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment New NYC gifted criterion: 2/3 NNAT, 1/3 OLSAT

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...816300100-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTAwODk3Wj.html
Big Change in Gifted and Talented Testing
By SOPHIA HOLLANDER
Wall Street Journal
October 7, 2012

A new test for admission into New York City's gifted and talented program will account for the bulk of a student's score, upending a testing regime that a growing number of children had appeared to master.

In a broader overhaul than previously announced, the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, also known as the NNAT, will count for two-thirds of a student's score, said city officials, who signed a three-year, $5.5 million contract with the testing company Pearson earlier this year. The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, or OLSAT, which increasing numbers of children had prepared for intensely, will drop to a third of the total from 75%.

City officials hailed the new test as a vast improvement. It relies on abstract spatial thinking and largely eliminates language, even from the instructions, an approach that officials said better captures intelligence, is more appropriate for the city's multilingual population and is less vulnerable to test preparation.

As a result, they expressed the hope that it would "improve the diversity of students that are recognized as gifted and talented," said Adina Lopatin, the deputy chief academic officer for the city's Department of Education. City officials said they were currently compiling data on the program's racial breakdown but students who qualified tended to be concentrated in wealthier districts. Areas such as the South Bronx produced few candidates.

Some experts have raised doubts about the NNAT's ability to create a racially balanced class. Several studies show the test produces significant scoring gaps between wealthier white and Asian children and their poor, minority counterparts.

***************************************************

Blogger Steve Sailer's comments are at http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-nyc-gifted-test-intended-to-be.html .

So now there will be a burgeoning industry in NNAT test prep. $100 per hour! Guaranteed to raise scores by x points!!!

I'm pretty sure I would not have been identified as gifted using the NNAT. (I have significant spatial reasoning deficits.)

Maybe they should go to giving each student a randomly selected test from among every possible assessment test. It won’t stop all test prep and would be a nightmare to administrate, but maybe it will bankrupt a few of the parents who don’t realize they are part of the problem.
-S.F.

Or they could take the top 2-3 or whatever percent of kids by school and create local gifted programs that pull from small clusters of nearby schools. That way, all the bright kids in Harlem would be with other bright kids from their own neighborhoods and the tiger parents on the upper west side could compete with each other to their heart's content.

Or they could pull the top x% by income group and, again, create local programs (this idea would kill ideas to move to or get a dummy address in another neighborhood where your test prep dollars aren't competing with as many other test prep dollars).

Of course, they could also just designate more schools as gifted schools and maybe stratify by IQ results.

IMO, this problem would be solvable with some will and some creativity, but both seem to be lacking.

The problem is that they don't have enough accelerated programs.

And they did have one accelerated program in east harlem where UWS parents didn't want to send their kids (me being one, it was a very dark school -- saving on electricity or something) and the middle school in the same building was dangerous.

And now they are messing up the middle schools.

Those seem like reasonable ideas, Val and Sfrog.

Your "creativity" involves denying some children a spot in gifted programs because their parents earn too much money. Unless I am applying for reduced-price lunches, I don't think the public schools should be inquiring about my income.

I'm sorry but the whole g & t program in NYC is very political and corrupt, in my mind. Kids in Riverdale refused to join a g & t school setup elsewhere in the Bronx; parents there wouldn't dare send their kids even across Broadway or #1 line.

Numerous kids are discriminated against using the g & t test; my ds was one of them. There's only so many slots for Anderson and other schools in Manhattan that are open to the outer boroughs. I could go on and on. If you think the g & t program is equitable, you are a fool.

My DS (now 6.5 yrs old) didn't qualify for the g & t program when he was 4 and we were living in NYC. Within a year of moving to MA, my DS rapidly accelerates within 2 1/2 months through a pre-k/k/1st curriculum at a private gifted school in MA. I'm then told that he's possibly eg/pg, but less than a year ago he didn't qualify for NYC's g & t. Now come on.

Income plays a massive role in the g & t test in NYC whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Why? There are some pop cultural questions on the g & t tests that only those who have access to money and exposure would know about. Many deprived and disadvantaged children are already at two disadvantages with the g & t program due to lack of exposure to test material and lack of knowledge about the test itself (it's seen as a middle-class vehicle for upward social mobility). That's not to say that they wouldn't qualify. It's just the ability to read, do math, and write easily and confidently comes partly from exposure, practice, and some inspiring from the parents.

I know MA doesn't have a gifted program and some see the NYC g & t program as the lesser of two evils, but as a parent of eg/pg son who's already been in two private gifted schools before 1st grade and seeing how they refused to accommodate - I don't see an easy answer. With many gifted schools, it still seems that they only cater to a rather narrow population of the gifted spectrum. The Edison-trait children are too often left in the lurch, imo.

I somewhat disagree and agree. The gifted test in NYC pre NNAT was biased for school readiness - there was no reading, no writing, no math. It was biased in that it rewards 4-5 year olds who would walk into a room and choose answers in response to questions from a stranger. Not all bright kids can or will do that. It is biased for income level in that if you had never seen worksheets because you didn't do them at home or you didn't do them in preschool then you might not realize that the first answer isn't the best answer.

But Wren hit the core of it - there are not enough slots - they do lottery for the citywides since there are more kids who score 99 than there are seats. The crime is that the city is selecting amongst the qualified rather than placing all the qualified.

There are a lot of kids in NYC who would benefit from an accelerated program - there are only 5 in the city for a total around 350 seats. For any program there has to be a cut off. And there is a huge difference in the kids readiness to be accelerated among those who got 99 versus those got 95. All kids over 90 are entitled to gifted enrichment but not acceleration. I think a lot of people see these programs and the wonderful opportunities they offer - a room full of bright kids, an engaged and donating PTA, excited and engaged teachers and administration - and ignore what acceleration really means. When you compare the citywides with the top regular publics in the city, the citywides move much much faster and deeper - not all kids are ready for this - but the kids that go all seem to be

My personal feeling is they need to provide acceleration for all the kids who meet the criteria. The Hunter elem test process is a portion of the SB-5 and if you make the cut off you go to a playdate. 250 or so make the cut off and then 25 boys and girls go to the school. No one complains nearly as much because there is a means to discriminate within the kids all making the grade. The frustration for the citywides is that you can make the grade and just not win the lottery - and the biases in who goes to the citiywides is by convenience - not everyone can get there so don't even select - it is selection bias by the parents on top of the lottery.

That being said, its still not sufficient for DYS kids.

DeHe