http://online.wsj.com/article_email...816300100-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTAwODk3Wj.html
Big Change in Gifted and Talented Testing
By SOPHIA HOLLANDER
Wall Street Journal
October 7, 2012

A new test for admission into New York City's gifted and talented program will account for the bulk of a student's score, upending a testing regime that a growing number of children had appeared to master.

In a broader overhaul than previously announced, the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, also known as the NNAT, will count for two-thirds of a student's score, said city officials, who signed a three-year, $5.5 million contract with the testing company Pearson earlier this year. The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, or OLSAT, which increasing numbers of children had prepared for intensely, will drop to a third of the total from 75%.

City officials hailed the new test as a vast improvement. It relies on abstract spatial thinking and largely eliminates language, even from the instructions, an approach that officials said better captures intelligence, is more appropriate for the city's multilingual population and is less vulnerable to test preparation.

As a result, they expressed the hope that it would "improve the diversity of students that are recognized as gifted and talented," said Adina Lopatin, the deputy chief academic officer for the city's Department of Education. City officials said they were currently compiling data on the program's racial breakdown but students who qualified tended to be concentrated in wealthier districts. Areas such as the South Bronx produced few candidates.

Some experts have raised doubts about the NNAT's ability to create a racially balanced class. Several studies show the test produces significant scoring gaps between wealthier white and Asian children and their poor, minority counterparts.

***************************************************

Blogger Steve Sailer's comments are at http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-nyc-gifted-test-intended-to-be.html .

So now there will be a burgeoning industry in NNAT test prep. $100 per hour! Guaranteed to raise scores by x points!!!

I'm pretty sure I would not have been identified as gifted using the NNAT. (I have significant spatial reasoning deficits.)

Maybe they should go to giving each student a randomly selected test from among every possible assessment test. It won’t stop all test prep and would be a nightmare to administrate, but maybe it will bankrupt a few of the parents who don’t realize they are part of the problem.
-S.F.

Or they could take the top 2-3 or whatever percent of kids by school and create local gifted programs that pull from small clusters of nearby schools. That way, all the bright kids in Harlem would be with other bright kids from their own neighborhoods and the tiger parents on the upper west side could compete with each other to their heart's content.

Or they could pull the top x% by income group and, again, create local programs (this idea would kill ideas to move to or get a dummy address in another neighborhood where your test prep dollars aren't competing with as many other test prep dollars).

Of course, they could also just designate more schools as gifted schools and maybe stratify by IQ results.

IMO, this problem would be solvable with some will and some creativity, but both seem to be lacking.

The problem is that they don't have enough accelerated programs.

And they did have one accelerated program in east harlem where UWS parents didn't want to send their kids (me being one, it was a very dark school -- saving on electricity or something) and the middle school in the same building was dangerous.

And now they are messing up the middle schools.

Those seem like reasonable ideas, Val and Sfrog.

Your "creativity" involves denying some children a spot in gifted programs because their parents earn too much money. Unless I am applying for reduced-price lunches, I don't think the public schools should be inquiring about my income.

I'm sorry but the whole g & t program in NYC is very political and corrupt, in my mind. Kids in Riverdale refused to join a g & t school setup elsewhere in the Bronx; parents there wouldn't dare send their kids even across Broadway or #1 line.

Numerous kids are discriminated against using the g & t test; my ds was one of them. There's only so many slots for Anderson and other schools in Manhattan that are open to the outer boroughs. I could go on and on. If you think the g & t program is equitable, you are a fool.

My DS (now 6.5 yrs old) didn't qualify for the g & t program when he was 4 and we were living in NYC. Within a year of moving to MA, my DS rapidly accelerates within 2 1/2 months through a pre-k/k/1st curriculum at a private gifted school in MA. I'm then told that he's possibly eg/pg, but less than a year ago he didn't qualify for NYC's g & t. Now come on.

Income plays a massive role in the g & t test in NYC whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Why? There are some pop cultural questions on the g & t tests that only those who have access to money and exposure would know about. Many deprived and disadvantaged children are already at two disadvantages with the g & t program due to lack of exposure to test material and lack of knowledge about the test itself (it's seen as a middle-class vehicle for upward social mobility). That's not to say that they wouldn't qualify. It's just the ability to read, do math, and write easily and confidently comes partly from exposure, practice, and some inspiring from the parents.

I know MA doesn't have a gifted program and some see the NYC g & t program as the lesser of two evils, but as a parent of eg/pg son who's already been in two private gifted schools before 1st grade and seeing how they refused to accommodate - I don't see an easy answer. With many gifted schools, it still seems that they only cater to a rather narrow population of the gifted spectrum. The Edison-trait children are too often left in the lurch, imo.

I somewhat disagree and agree. The gifted test in NYC pre NNAT was biased for school readiness - there was no reading, no writing, no math. It was biased in that it rewards 4-5 year olds who would walk into a room and choose answers in response to questions from a stranger. Not all bright kids can or will do that. It is biased for income level in that if you had never seen worksheets because you didn't do them at home or you didn't do them in preschool then you might not realize that the first answer isn't the best answer.

But Wren hit the core of it - there are not enough slots - they do lottery for the citywides since there are more kids who score 99 than there are seats. The crime is that the city is selecting amongst the qualified rather than placing all the qualified.

There are a lot of kids in NYC who would benefit from an accelerated program - there are only 5 in the city for a total around 350 seats. For any program there has to be a cut off. And there is a huge difference in the kids readiness to be accelerated among those who got 99 versus those got 95. All kids over 90 are entitled to gifted enrichment but not acceleration. I think a lot of people see these programs and the wonderful opportunities they offer - a room full of bright kids, an engaged and donating PTA, excited and engaged teachers and administration - and ignore what acceleration really means. When you compare the citywides with the top regular publics in the city, the citywides move much much faster and deeper - not all kids are ready for this - but the kids that go all seem to be

My personal feeling is they need to provide acceleration for all the kids who meet the criteria. The Hunter elem test process is a portion of the SB-5 and if you make the cut off you go to a playdate. 250 or so make the cut off and then 25 boys and girls go to the school. No one complains nearly as much because there is a means to discriminate within the kids all making the grade. The frustration for the citywides is that you can make the grade and just not win the lottery - and the biases in who goes to the citiywides is by convenience - not everyone can get there so don't even select - it is selection bias by the parents on top of the lottery.

That being said, its still not sufficient for DYS kids.

DeHe

The other end of it is that the "99" kids may actually be 95 kids who were prepped. Heck, they may be less able than the 90 kids who were not prepped and who come from disadvantaged backgrounds for all we know. Test prep, as a whole, just totally changes the ballgame. We see some of that where I live just thankfully not the extent that is going on in NYC. Even the little bit we have here has messed with the GT id process and the GT programming as well, IMHO.

I agree with Cricket (and others).

It's not fair, never has been fair, and this doesn't do much to change that particular landscape.

Wouldn't it be great to have GT programming that sieves/screens all students and filters them through enrichment, pullouts, full-time immersion classrooms, and so on-- until that educational system matches each child's actual needs educationally?? No tests, no entry recommendations, no fees, just what kids need and gravitate toward.

Then we might still have a few psycho TigerParents who would be whipping their "enrichment" children into slots in full-time immersion classes, but at least those slots wouldn't be effectively stolen from other kids that needed them.

:sigh: A girl can dream, right?

I guess that scenario happens although truthfully I don't get why. If you do a workbook with a kid and they can do it, doesn't that mean they can do that kind of work? Why is it prepping as opposed to learning? A kid who is not ready to read is not going to because you keep trying to teach him. Showing a kid a rhombus because it might show up on the test, they still have to remember what it was. This isn't an iq - it's whether they are ready to sit and learn. And they do a lot of that. I think all these test preppers really do their kids a disservice if the kids really can't do this kind of accelerated learning. Its a lot of pressure on the kid and also on the parents. I always wonder if the test preppers are the ones who complain about homework or are the ones who want more. The better argument is about exposure, the same case is being made right now at the other end of learning in NYC - not enough people of color at the high school exam schools. There you see certain cohorts either via money or culture prepping like crazy and other cohorts not and not being exposed to the type of material on the tests. One way testing has helped is that taking state tests at 3rd, 4th and 5th grade prior to the sshat test identifies student who should be encouraged to take it but also where schools need to improve - assuming the goal is more diversity in the exam schools - but the question is whether that happens.

But there are always going to be people unhappy because a cut off has to be provided. They just need to make that cut off more legitimate. And they need to serve this population of learners better.

DeHe

It's different than learning if some of the prep is around test-taking strategies oriented towards the type of questions on a test.
So for this problem you could be good at multiplication or test taking to get it right:
5231 * 8243 =
A) 45,768,329
B) 43,119,133
C) 4,311,931
D) 43,911,332

You can also be trained in specific heuristics for certain types of tests without having the ability discover those heuristics yourself.

Howler, I vote for you for the Board of Ed.

DeeDee

If I teach my son that the last digit of x*y can be inferred from the last digits of x and y, because some book or web site informed that such questions appear on an admissions test, does that make me a "thief" of some more-deserving child's place?

There are truly unethical tactics. It's probably possible to buy the NNAT, WISC, SB, or other tests on some sleazy part of the Internet. I would not do that. There is a book by NYC parent Karen Quinn sold openly on Amazon, "Testing for Kindergarten: Simple Strategies to Help Your Child Ace the Tests for: Public School Placement, Private School Admissions, Gifted Program Qualification". I assume that the makers of the NNAT/WISC/SB have no legal objection to this book, or it would not have been published. If I lived in NYC I probably would buy this $10 book and expose my children to the topics in it that they had not already seen. If other parents are not on the ball, tough.

But it's just not necessary for the olsat. It's not writing, math or reading. It is choosing between things, recognizing patterns and shapes. These are 4 to 5 year olds. The most powerful tool you can give them is to tell them to look at all the answers before choosing and to do all the questions. Is that really prepping?

And the buying the tests and books are for the hunter test or the erb which is some of the WPSSI which the private schools use. And our banter tester told us that kids were disqualified because they had seen the test. That is cheating. But the DOE actually tells parents to have their kid do the practice test the provide.

DeHe

If all anyone needed was a $10 book, and if it was reasonably well-publicized (e.g. the schools add a reference to it in the materials they give to parents), I would agree.

But the kindergarten test prep industry is huge. A lot of upper-middle-class parents spend thousands of dollars each to hyper-prep their kids so that they can pass tests that most of the kids here would pass with the aid of your $10 book or some free online sample questions. In public education, the playing field for getting into something like a gifted program should be equal across the board (even though outcomes will not be equal). When it's so slanted toward purchasing success, others are damaged. Some truly gifted kids don't get in. And the truly gifted kids who DO get in are also damaged because the classes have to slow down to meet the needs of the kids who are less bright but were test-prepped.

And worse, these tiger-prepping me-first attitudes permeate the entire educational establishment, from K through to university admissions and beyond. The result, IMO, is kids who've been taught to focus on personal gain and who are not trained to be what I would call "thoughtful citizens" or even "thoughtful students who are interested in learning." See: Harvard cheating scandal, assorted standardized test scandals, etc. Sure, people will often naturally put themselves first, but right now, our educational culture seems to be presenting that concept as a model, which is...well, broken.

Okay, I'm talking about IQ tests here, so this may not be apples to apples. However, IQ tests are normed on a sample population that is, theoretically, not prepped on the material. Thus, the kids who are scoring in the 99th percentile, are scoring there without prep/pre-teaching/practice arranging blocks/repeating back strings of numbers/etc.

If you take a group of kids now and test them on the same material with a similar level of prep (none, hopefully), the kids who are similarly innately able to those 99th kids in the norming sample should test similarly. If you take a group of kids and prep them (teach them to the test) before giving it to them, it stands to reason that they will outscore the similarly able kids in the norming sample b/c they have been taught more before being given the test. They will, therefore, appear more able than they are IMHO b/c the test is designed to be administered under similar conditions to the norming sample and it is not.

Agree that there aren't enough slots or programs to accommodate but still feel all these tests are aimed at kids who think sequentially, linearly, and can sit still and pay attention. The kids who are divergent thinkers or out-of-the-box do not usually get into these programs. Fine, prep kids. What about the 2e kids with attentional or other issues? There's often nothing.

NYC Board of Ed is the second biggest government bureaucracy after the federal government. The number of hoops and hurdles parents need to go through is really daunting and insane. Many, many, many parents end up leaving NYC (me included) due to the educational system. While there are some excellent schools and programs, it's incredibly stressful to say the least.

If you think it's bad for gifted parents, try navigating the system as a special needs parent or 2e parent. That's another crazy system. Stephen Gaynor, Churchill, Gillen Brewer, Parkside are very good special needs schools, but not much in terms of giftedness. And, again the issue remains the lack of slots. Parkside takes 4 girls, 4 boys each year - that's it!

No argument from me on the insane level of bureaucracy and the crazy allocation of services. And I totally agree about who the tests yields - kids who can sit and work, and work ahead. You are right divergent thinkers are not captured by these tests.

You are lucky you can leave, we can't due to our work situations. And as my DYS DS gets older I am encountering more and more of what so many people here complain about - its really hard to find a good school fit.

DeHe

Well, we lost a lot of money when we moved back to MA, even though the cost of living is somewhat comparable to NYC. I wouldn't say life is a bowl of cherries now, but it's very likely would have been in the dark about the eg/pg and extent of the giftedness or 2e issues if we hadn't moved.

I understand what you're saying DeHe. I had a neighbor who had a gifted son that went to Anderson. She withdrew him due to the intense competition and asl focus. She then put him in a local charter school only to withdraw him due to a peanut allergy. Now, they're homeschooling him and I know financially it's a big challenge for them.

I also know a friend who sues the NYC Board of Ed each year so her son can attend Parkside. Each year she's got to obtain a lawyer and sue so her son can go to Parkside. This was a kid who was doing long division at 4, but unfortunately has a laundry list of special needs and is unlikely to be in a public school soon. Of course, Parkside ($30,000+/yr) is still cheaper than Gillen Brewer ($50,000+/yr), but still that's a crazy situation. Only in NYC.

Edison-trait kids, divergent thinkers, or 2e kids like my friend's (and son's) are problematic for many school systems. There may be some schools that cater to them, like Parkside, but it's far from the norm and often quite an undertaking to get a slot at these schools. I know there are some children of famous celebrities that attend Parkside; at least they can afford it.

The vast majority of schools still teach in an auditory, sequential, linear manner; that's even the case at gifted schools. They're just not conducive to kids who mutiny with rote, repetition, and worksheets or pg kids who learn in great gulps and rapidly accelerate. Many gifted schools and programs just can't accommodate a DYS child who needs more individualized learning; or at least that's what I've discovered since my son's been in two private gifted schools here in MA. So you do start to find yourself banging your head and at a loss as to what to do.

Of course, the situation makes it difficult on the parents and nearly impossible to find a school where a DYS child can be accommodated unless you're willing to relocate to Reno or somewhere, which isn't always possible or doable as we both know. Even then, I say you might be chasing a pipe dream and magic potion. Not saying that I don't want a magic wand or magic potion some days, but that you can drive yourself silly with chasing a school situation .