Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Recommended Resources More Pre-K Pupils Qualify for Gifted Programs

I remember reading a link on this site to the prep classes offered in NYC for the intense admission process to schools in the area. Here is an article directly linked to the prep courses. Interesting read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/nyregion/01gifted.html?hpw

Reading about the NYC schools is frightening. Anyone dealing with this system has my sympathies.

Yes, I agree with Inky. I used to envy people in New York because they had so many schools for gifted kids. Then I read about what people have to go through, and I'm glad I don't live there.

The schools could probably ameliorate the problem with a little creativity and by banning test prep for four-year-olds.

Val

"The schools could probably ameliorate the problem with a little creativity and by banning test prep for four-year-olds."

Huh? Whether I prepare my child for a test is my decision, NOT the government's. Even if you thought the government should intrude in this manner, how would you enforce such a law?

If there is a gifted program, I think should children should be added (or removed) each year based on some reasonable criteria. If the focus of a gifted program is advanced work in academic subjects, as I think it should be, admit students to those classes based on prior performance in those classes and/or test scores in those subjects.

Hmm. Well, as I understand it, the schools are trying to identify kids who are gifted because they need a different learning environment than kids who aren't. The problem with prepping children is that the test scores include what could be called false positives of giftedness.

The tests have a relatively definable set of questions, which makes them, umm, preppable. Kids who are prepped will probably get higher scores than they would without being prepped. This is the point of test prep (obviously), but it's also what's wrong with it: prepping allows kids who aren't gifted to be classified as gifted. In this subgroup, the score can be a reflection of how well the kids know how to take the test, rather than a reflection of innate giftedness.

If kids who aren't gifted end up in gifted programs, the academic pace may move too quickly for them. This creates a risk that they end up getting frustrated or feeling inadequate. This isn't fair to them.

Gifted programs recognize that gifted kids need a different learning environment from most other kids, just as kids with disabilities need a different learning environment. Unfortunately, New York seems to be suffering from a perception that these programs confer status, and a competition to gain admittance (and an industry feeding on it) has developed. IMHO, this has undermined the point of the programs on many levels.

It's been widely documented that using performance in a previous grade or subject as an indicator of giftedness is a flawed approach. Many gifted kids shut down in a classroom that moves too slowly and refuse to do too-easy work on principle. Some (my eldest, for example), feel offended at being asked to take lessons on something they figured out themselves a while back. This can lead to a cycle of underachievement and feelings of inadequacy.

Just my 2c.

Val

Even if what you are saying about the undesirability of preparing young children for (what are effectively IQ) tests is true, in a free country you cannot ban such preparation. I bet there already lots of expensive private preschools in NYC that have shaped their activities to prepare kids for the gifted entrance exam. Are you going to close them?

Searching "private schools" on Amazon I found on the 1st page
an upcoming book

Testing for Kindergarten: Simple Strategies to Help Your Child Ace the Tests for: Public School Placement, Private School Admissions, Gifted Program Qualification by Karen Quinn (Paperback - July 6, 2010)

Do you think this book should be banned?

I think there needs to be a broad effort to explain that placing a child in a gifted program does not MAKE him/her gifted. We don't know how to create innate ability, unfortunately. Realism about The Bell Curve would make make people saner IMO.

Hmm. I don't recall advocating for banning books. Please don't twist my words. One of the nicest things about this forum is that we try to avoid flame wars.

Again, I'm just saying that I'm concerned that all of the test prepping is placing non-gifted kids into a gifted classrooms in New York. Gifted kids and non-gifted kids both lose when this happens. Plus, the environment is very stressful for parents.


I disagree. I think there needs to be a broad effort to ensure that children who are placed in gifted programs are actually gifted, just as programs for children with learning disabilities should only have children with learning disabilities. If kids who aren't gifted or who don't have LDs are admitted incorrectly, the programs and the kids they're supposed to serve will suffer.

The Davidson Academy is a case in point. The people who run it work very hard to ensure that everyone who's admitted is profoundly gifted. Admitting kids who don't qualify could make their learning experiences very negative, and it could also take slots away from kids who need the environment that the academy offers.

Val

Another article about prepping for the entrance test.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/nyregion/07erb.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Steven J. Nelson, head of Calhoun, summed up my opinion about the idea of prepping: �Even worse is the emphasis that is placed on the test that creates a culture of frenetic overachievement.�

Basically the article is the backlash to the stats showing the increase in scores. Two major schools are pulling the test with others talking about it.

Thanks for posting the link. It was an interesting article. It seems unfair to subject a four-year-old to something as pointless as standardized-test prep.

It's gratifying to see that some of the schools are questioning the whole idea of the ERB test.

Val

If there were more programs that aligned with children's abilities, I don't think the test prep programs would get as much business. 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?
Good warning in the ERB prep book but without enough learning environments for all children to flourish, it probably won't (and maybe even shouldn't) be heeded:
http://docs.erbtest.org/pdfs/WhattoExpectECAAOneToOne.pdf
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.