Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Old news that's new to me: Justin Chapman

This was actually proposed in nyc - going to composite scores after the debacle with Pearson and so many 99s. This year had a different test and there were fewer 99s, still more than there were seats though. .

You would never know from this discussion that many nyc families happily go to their local district schools. Contrary to Bostonians choices - there are many excellent non g+t local schools. Which is why only 13, 000 of the 38,000 potential kindergarters took the test, sometimes that's because of failing schools, sometimes it's because of recognition the kid needs more, and still others do it because of the perception of the benefits and extras in the schools. In 2014 3400 got above a 97 but all those who got above 90% get placed in g+t but not always the one they want which is why many turn it down for local school after not getting the top schools. There are only five citywides, the equivalent of Stuyvesant for the elementary set - that is what the craziness is over. That there aren't more of those. And the same way that the making of more specialized high schools didn't dilute stuy or bx sciences reputation and desirability, no amount of additional seats will make these 5 elem school less coveted among a certain group. And there is a difference just like there is a difference at the high school level. But having more of them, particularly in the bronx and the outer reaches of the outer boroughs is what will improve opportunities and also lessen the racial imbalance in the specialized schools. But you don't hear that talk currently from the chancellor or the mayor. However, the debacle from Pearson really put testing and g&t on the radar for politicians. So it is possible that there will be more seats eventually, of course then you hear that there is no difference between a 99 and a 98, it just a bad day. Actually on the OLSAT and naglieri, it's actually a lot of questions wrong between 99 and 98 so it is a reasonable tool for determining if a 5 year old is going to be able to be grade skipped to 1st grade, because that's what the citywides are - globally accelerated programs, the regular g+t fills with high achieving kids but they are not accelerated just enriched so for the tiger parent the difference is crushing. But not all kids can handle the pace, and a lot of parents can't either.

Of course for the DYS kids, none of the nyc schools are great options, not the privates, not the publics. The kids are just too unique. But by virtue of the lottery, a DYS can easily get shut out, which makes the whole system laughable.

DeHe

What on earth makes you think that? I've seen an undergraduate computer science project do a pretty good job of programming how to solve Raven's, so I assume teaching children to do so would be, at the very least, no harder!

Steps onto soapbox.

People sometimes have this impression that IQ tests, or their favourite part of them, is uncoachable. I don't see how that could possibly be true. I can't think of any skill, mental or physical, that can't be improved by focused practice.

And once we're in a world where it is legitimate to have and use knowledge of what skills will be used to judge your child, i.e. some prep is allowed and there are no firm rules on how much, I think it's silly to see the parent who does most as "cheating", frankly. The rules are the rules and the parent's only duty in this context, besides following them, is to do the best for their child. The reason not to do ridiculous amounts of prep is that it might get your child into somewhere they'll have trouble keeping up. But I bet if the alternative to getting in were having the kid thrown to the wolves, no one of you would blame the parent for doing whatever prep was feasible. Sadly, to some combinations of children and schools, it feels as though the alternative isn't far off that.

I don't think you've ever had quite this in the US, but the grammar school/secondary modern divide still exists in a few parts of the UK. Children are tested (for a set of skills that are usually a good proxy for IQ) at 10 (in the 11+) and divided into schools on that basis. Parents love the grammar schools, but some of the secondary moderns, now called comprehensive but not really so, of course, are not places any of you would want to send your children. So there is an 11+ testing industry (see

http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/index.php

for a parent's eye view), tutoring for several years before the test is normal, and the grammar schools are stuffed full of middle class children. Does that system stink? Yes. But only the most blinkered parent of a rare HG+ child who'd ace the test without prep could blame the parents; for children with the ability the schools are actually aimed at, not preparing is foolish.

Stop thinking there's some magic way to sort children. There isn't.

Steps off soapbox

The 11+ isn't what DS is doing, incidentally.

About college essays: maybe there are places there that use them. The equivalent here is ignored for admissions decisions by the best universities, precisely because it is well known not to be an indicator of what the student can do.

Speyer is good for PG kids in NYC but it is expensive and Hunter has had success with PG kids. There was one that just graduated HS a couple of years ago that graduated Columbia at the same time in math and physics.
The lottery happened because of a lawsuit. And they do start with all the 99s first. But they do not differentiate between a 99 and a 99.5. Too many 99s on the tests they use for the slots available. And then because some 99s didn't get into the accelerate programs, because of lottery, like DD, there was another lawsuit and no public school could accelerate the program.
I am now trying to work with Toronto school board. Though by the time they change, DD will be gone. But they they need to differentiate and make accelerated, enriched and general curriculums. DD wonders why so many of her classmates are considered gifted after being in NYC where all her classmates scored at least in the 99th percentile. Even if it was the OLSAT.

In general, test prep for ACHIEVEMENT tests is broadly considered ethical as "learning the material" and we see many schools "teaching to the test".

Meanwhile, test prep for IQ tests is broadly considered unethical as gaming the system or cheating, yet is also widespread. This may explain why many schools do not accept outside test results but rather utilize tests which they may believe have not been "leaked", results which not been frankenstiened or superscored, and subtests which have not been selected after-the-fact for having the highest scores. This may also explain why some schools administer multiple tests and look for consistency among the results.

In the case at hand for the thread topic, links in previous posts indicate that the parent mis-represented another student's ACHIEVEMENT test scores as her sons, and purchased a copy of the IQ test to cheat.

Please consider that this is an artificial limit. As long as there are enough buildings, seats, and teachers, there is no actual limit to the number of those buildings, seats, and teachers which can be dedicated to gifted education and/or some form of advanced academics.

As Colinsmum suggests, Ravens is totally teachable. Do a Google Image search for "raven matrices" and practice a few of them, and see if you don't get better right quick.

The so-called ability tests have never claimed to be unteachable. This is precisely why they are so uptight about their materials not being leaked. They rely on the fiction that the problems they use are entirely novel to all students.

Pretty much sums my thoughts up.

DD, for example, who was +3y accelerated, easily topped the ranges reported by TIP for agemates on not only the ACT but also the SAT.

But then again, she had an advantage that many of those 12-13yo students do not have-- she was a high school junior, see.

I also wanted to underscore Bostonian's point that the ability to BENEFIT substantially from test prep is itself a g-loaded activity. This is how I view Amy Chua's memoirs, as well-- that is, sure, she was a helicopter parent from hell, but even so, her kids wouldn't have been experiencing the LEVEL of success that they have achieved without being gifted to begin with. KWIM?

That doesn't make such pressured parenting right in a moral sense, I think; but it does explain that there still isn't really any secret sauce for "creating" a HG+ child. Not starting from a NT one, anyway-- and even starting from a MG one, there is a viciously high price to be paid for doing this kind of thing.

As for this particular instance, yeah-- that is WAY beyond the pale.

I'm not sure I accept the argument that prepping is g-loaded and therefore it's okay. That's just another way of justifying coaching your kid into scoring an extra ten points on the test so he can qualify for Hunter or wherever. IMO, this practice is particularly egregious when the testing is for entering kindergartners. HG+ kids can learn K and 1st grade level skills through osmosis before they start school. These kids really, truly need something different. Justifying prep as a means of entry is similar to the idea that placing everyone into algebra in 8th grade will help get them ready for college (with the predictable result that algebra gets watered down). Both ideas are simply wrong.

Hyper-prepping non-gifted kids up to the cutoff just makes it harder for truly gifted kids to get what they NEED. Do the non-GT kids benefit from the programs? Probably. But at what cost to the kids who met the cutoff but got cut out because of the lottery? And what's the cost to the gifted kids who got lucky in the lottery, but are now in a "gifted" classroom where prepping has depressed the average IQ?

Yeah, I know that gifted but-low-SES kids may not have the same osmosis advantage due to environment, but they're not the ones with personal tutors. If anything, the personal tutor crowd just makes things even harder for the gifted low SES kids.

Somewhat against the point I made earlier, and in favour of "ability to benefit from test prep is itself g loaded" anyone who didn't follow The Perfect Score Project the first time round might like to read up on it:
http://perfectscoreproject.com/about-the-perfect-score-project-2/
This professionally competent woman devoted a year, essentially, to prepping to a perfect SAT score. I assumed she'd do it, and I think she assumed she'd do it. She didn't; her maths scores moved remarkably little. Tbh I still can't really absorb this, and tend to wish I'd had the chance to prep her myself!

Obviously BUYING an IQ test to "prep" a kid is unethical. But I'm not sure one can really stop people from training their kid in this style of test. And I am sure it would work to some extent.

Personally I don't see what the point of prepping for IQ tests, tests for giftedness and/or IQ Tests, and the end of year state tests. My son just went through a full battery of tests (neuro psyc testing) and the only thing I did was talk to him about taking the tests serious. (I don't have the results for another few weeks.) How would this information be useful if I prepped him. I have a hard enough time convincing people that my son hasn't been heavily tutored. My school used the OLSAT for testing into GATE and while the party line at the district is you can't prep for it. I know some parents who tried, although I don't know how or if it was successful.

I can see why people try if it takes a 99% to be put in a lottery to get into the gifted magnets in NYC? My district it used to be 95% but it seems as if they have gone to a new test this year. My son got a 99% but I don't think this was very common even among other kids in his gifted class.

On the other hand I will definitely prep my son for the SAT/PSAT although we will not do the whole summer long 4 hours a day +homework type of prep. Ironically the "top" kids are the ones that do the most prep for this test. I assume he will do well even without prep but there are tricks to how to take these test. Most of the other kids in our area get so much prep that it would be a disadvantage to not even crack open a SAT prep book even for a very gifted kid.