But when the choice for parents of a child who would score 97% without prep and 99% with prep is curriculum geared to 50% (or even lower) or 99%, which is more damaging to that child?
From an outsider's perspective, it seems like New York parents of modest means are forced into a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Well...my understanding is that the gifted schools pull from the 90th percentile and up, except for one or two, which use the 99th as a cutoff.
It's true that the 90th percentile is an arbitrary cutoff. I want also to note something that was said in the
Bright or Gifted? thread, which is "Really, everyone would benefit from
My main arguments against ERB test prep are that
1. It creates an unhealthy frenetic enviroment, and
2. It tests how well a child takes the ERB and little else. Thus, reeults probably aren't good indicators of giftedness or lack thereof.
If students who aren't gifted begin to comprise a sizable amount of a "gifted" classroom, the pace will have to slow down and the students for whom the program was designed will be cheated. Either that or the pace will go too fast and the prepped-but-not gifted kids will get frustrated and start feeling inadequate.
The ERB and other standardized tests aren't good indicators of IQ anyway. Perhaps they could be useful for creating a shortlist of candidates for proper IQ testing with a pscychologist. Setting a low cutoff for follow-on testing (80th or 85th percentile) and a high cutoff for giftedness (97th or 98th percentile) would help ensure that gifted kids are in an appropriate environment.
Better yet, structuring schools away from age-grade lockstep programs would probably be a lot easier and cheaper, and would benefit everyone.
Val
