Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Is Talent Search testing becoming meaningless?

I was looking at the NUMTAS 2012 report that came out (http://toolbox.ctd.northwestern.edu/download/?f=2012-statistical-summary.pdf) and I have to admit, I was pretty surprised. The high scores just seem SO high. It makes me wonder if it has become all about test prep. I mean, a 6th grader needs a 33 on the ACT reading- yikes, that's nearly perfect. And the weird thing is, it seems like the ACT/SAT scores needed are higher compared to the "normal" test takers (NUMATS versus HS seniors) than the EXPLORE (NUMATS versus 8th graders) even though there is more of an age gap - could that be because the NUMATS participants taking the ACT/SAT are both old enough to prep more and there are a plethora of materials for prepping?
The one exception seemed to be the SAT CR (I was actually a little disappointed to see that my son's 610 would have qualified, because only a 590 is needed this year; he didn't take it through NUMATS). Maybe that's harder to prep?
I don't know if this post is even making sense - but as I was looking, I was just thinking, "good think ds10 qualified with EXPLORE (and he just squeaked through with an 85, which was the minimum) because there's no way he'd put in the prep needed to get a high enough score next year." He had the exposure to higher math, so was able to get the 25 and qualify. Ds12, even though he is really gifted in math, "only" got a 590 in math on the SAT, well below the 680 needed, because he hasn't been exposed.
I guess my question is, does the Talent Search still serve the purpose of identifying gifted students *if* those students haven't already been identified by parents and/or teachers and exposed to/prepped with much higher-level materials?
Just curious what others think...

Edited to add: Okay, just realized (thanks, Bostonian) that my post didn't really make sense - I was referencing the "awards criteria", not the scores needed to participate. I realize that this is a completely different thing, but honestly, I still can't get over how high they are - it does seem like you'd need a lot of prep to qualify for an award. Maybe that's a totally different ball of wax and I shouldn't even be thinking about the awards? http://toolbox.ctd.northwestern.edu/download/?f=AC-2012-Score-CRITERIA-Form.pdf

I can't access the pdf you listed. Are you sure you are reading it right? A 680 math SAT cutoff is pretty high for 7th grade. Johns Hopkins CTY http://cty.jhu.edu/summer/docs/intensive_eligibility.pdf requires a math SAT of 580, 630, 680, and 730 for students in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10-12 who want to participate in the Intensive Studies program .

I can't access the pdf you listed. Are you sure you are reading it right? A 680 math SAT cutoff is pretty high for 7th grade. Johns Hopkins CTY http://cty.jhu.edu/summer/docs/intensive_eligibility.pdf requires a math SAT of 580, 630, 680, and 730 for students in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10-12 who want to participate in the Intensive Studies program .

Note to self: no more posting before coffee . Yes, my post didn't quite make sense (I've since edited it). I was talking about the awards. My ds-just turned 12-is a 6th grader, so your post at least made me feel better about his scores, although after looking at the prices of those Intensive Studies, the qualifying scores would be the least of our problems!

Talent search is about having both the talent and the exposure to higher level math. Certainly there are kids with less talent and more exposure (likely from prepping) who do well. Most likely the kids who did very well weren't "prepped", but have been accelerated several years in math because of their math talent.

The search will miss kids with lots of talent and little exposure to higher level math (whether from school/parents/self). They would not be "captured" with the current talent search testing.

Actually they not that different from last years criteria. Some up and some down from last year.

http://www.ctd.northwestern.edu/docs/ctd/acscorecriteria2011.pdf


It depends what someone is looking to gain from testing. For us, it was purely wanting to understand DS better and advocate for him better. We did not prep him. We wanted to know what he could really do on his own. Ds doesn't even know about award ceremonies. It is possible to get those scores without prepping. My ds has some exposure at school but even more of his exposure is his own reading and self learning style. I'm sure exposure matters on achievement testing but it doesn't have to be formal schooling or prepping. His scores lead to us getting IQ testing done, our DYS application submitted, and acceleration for next year. It was super helpful for us. I wasn't worried about the Numats stats as much as being able to show the school he was functioning higher than their prep school seniors.

I did find the HS testing more helpful than Explore because school officials are familiar with it. Only a few understood his Explore results.


On prepping, I'm not sure how much you can prep a ND kid and get improved results on Talent Searches. I'm sure prepping a GT kid would most likely improve the scores. The kids have to have a certain level of readiness to teach higher levels. If I needed DS to have scores for entrance to a school or something of that nature. I'm sure I would have considered prepping him. Just like he will prep come college time.

My 2 cents ... The experience was invaluable to us:)

My dd's scores qualified her for the recognition ceremony. She doesn't even want to go. For her, it was an opportunity to take the test "cold", no prep work and just see what she could do. I suppose it depends on what you or your child is hoping to get out of the test. Having to do arduous prep work seems counterproductive at least as far as my child is concerned. She said she felt bad for the kids who were being bombarded with information right up until they walked through the testing room doors. DD likes to learn and sees it as fun...I would hate to take that away from her.

After-school programs such as the Russian School of Math (RSM) http://www.russianschool.com/sat_results.html are producing some 7th-8th graders with high SAT math scores (average of 672 in their case). RSM is primarily about teaching math, not test prep (though there is not a bright line between those activities) , but many students who have been with RSM during elementary school are ready to do well on the SAT by 7th grade.

I just noticed some weird gaps in the statistics tables. For example, EXPLORE science (4th gr), 25 (22) 24( 0) 23 (30)..... that cannot be right. My DS has 24. It seems like all 24s disappeared for science and reading.

The stats don't include this years test takers. They are always based on the previous 2 years. They are the 2010 & 2011 testers.

Two years ago in 4th grade (perhaps the bar is lower for 4th compared to the 6th grade criteria you reference?), my then just turned 10yo dd took the Explore cold. She was in a regular public school with a policy of in-class differentiation (vs. grade skip), i.e., she had no special academic training or test prep.

Our only prep was to give her the example test questions in the registration packet with a home made bubble sheet a few days in advance, to make sure she understood how to do a bubble test. I forget the composite score, but it earned her a bronze medal from NUMATS (tied for 3rd place for her grade level), and was at the 99th %ile based on the 8th grade norms.