(I think I read somewhere that about 30% of the kids who test at 4 into the NYC gifted program would not qualify at age 6 - but I don't know if that is accurate).
Cat
Grr, the conversations about the NYC testing drive me insane. The NYC program uses the OLSAT/Bracken combo platter - so 75% sort of IQ although not like WISC or SBV and 25% is the bracken school readiness testing. But the real issue is the score to qualify - 90% gets you into a gifted program in your district, which are single classes or pullouts. So that 90% captures a wide range of kids that probably aren't over 125 or 130. But 97% does likely capture 125 and above and that is what gets you into the citywide programs. And then if you throw in Hunter where this year kids needed a 149 sum of scaled scores on selected subtests, there is lots of talk. I don't think the the kids that get into Hunter and Citywide would not fall into the same scored range, assuming the "had a good day" factor was kept the same. I think its more that the kids who don't make the cutoff at 4.5 could do so at 8 but don't get the opportunity.
Personally, I think the testing is legitimate as a way of distinguishing between readiness to do more advanced work or more at a quicker pace. However, the testing clearly doesn't find all who can. But the flaming out of these students later seems to me about all the other things that factor into doing well in school rather than raw aptitude or ability.
To me the worst part is that for both Hunter and the Citywides, there are more qualified kids than slots - and the choice is not made by highest score - but by playdate in the case of Hunter (who do we want) and lottery for NYC (so random).
Okay, getting off the soapbox now . . .
DeHe
