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.

You must be kidding. The stat report can't be from 2010/11 data. My DS took EXPLORE last year, so I did some comparison for 2009/10 and 2010/11. It made sense to me at that time, since his science score was peculiar and easy to spot.

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.

I agree, and I wasn't necessarily talking about "formal" schooling, but I wonder if a gifted child who didn't have parents who exposed him to books and discussions and summer camps and I don't know - what I think most of us here do for our kids- would have a chance of being identified.

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.

That makes sense to me. Obviously, if all kids could benefit from accelerated math, we'd be teaching algebra in 5th grade instead of 8th or 9th in our public schools. I guess I just wonder how much of it is pure talent/capacity and how much is exposure.

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.

And I'm not knocking programs like RSM, or the other math prep programs out there. I would love to know, though, what percentage of award winners have done programs like RSM (or Khan Academy, or Kumon, or a computer class, etc) and what percentage are truly being instructed at grade level and are somehow able to make that leap.
I'm also NOT knocking the award winners at all or saying it's undeserved (especially since both my boys had scores at qualifying levels this year). I'm honestly just curious. For my ds12, who took the SAT through his school district, I've been talking to more parents since the results came out, and I was surprised at how many had bought SAT study guides.
And I don't think that's a bad thing - I bought those for my older kids and plan to buy them for my younger ones when they take it for real.
I think, for me, the difference is that way, way back when, when I was younger, the people who took talent search had never seen a test like that, had no prep, usually weren't getting any kind of enrichment (this was before it was such a big industry)... now, I think most kids taking it have had *some* kind of enrichment, if not necessarily prep. Back in my day, differentiation was unheard of - I was grade skipped when I was bored, but that was pretty much the end of it.

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.

What do you think accounted for such a high score, especially in math? Was the math she did at school and home truly at a 4th grade level and was she able to make that jump even though she had never seen some of the math before? Was she reading at a much higher level at school and home? Were you surprised that she scored so highly?
I do find the ACT/SAT scores more surprising than the EXPLORE scores, especially the math. I find it hard to believe that a child who wasn't already grade/subject or otherwise accelerated or enriched could possibly do all of the SAT/ACT math in 6th grade, just because it's not all intuitive - some stuff you need to learn, in the same way that you can be very gifted, but that doesn't mean if someone speaks Chinese you'll understand it.

I miss read the information. This is what they say


How to Read the Tables and Charts
You need to know just a few things to understand this report and to see how your child’s scores compare with those of other NUMATS participants. Approximately 25,000 students in grades 3 through 9 participated in the 2012 NUMATS program. This statistical summary is based on scores from an even larger sample of NUMATS test-takers, including all those from 2010 and 2011 (over 50,000 students). Using such large numbers is a significantly reliable method of establishing percentiles for this year’s NUMATS test-takers.

As you might expect, her experience has been spotty. Her elementary school was on two campuses (K-2 and 3-5) with very different principals. She had excellent in-class acceleration in math in 2nd grade, but learned almost no new math in 3rd. Her 4th grade teacher was opposed to acceleration but introduced off-curriculum math topics. (As a current 6th grader, she is in Honors Algebra.)

For reading, she has been an insatiable reader since age 2 - she goes through books in quantity. I'm pretty sure she learned virtually nothing in school related to reading until around 4th grade.

The most surprising part of the Explore for us was the Science. I expected this to be her weakest area due to not having the exposure in school. She aced that one, though, and as far as we can tell from what our kids reported, it actually required minimal content knowledge. Rather, it tested reading and logic skills. The test provided short texts with data, graphs and other info., and asked the kids to draw conclusions (without bringing in prior knowledge about the topic).

I think it's important to realize that not all kids who score at very high levels on such tests have been test prepped or formally taught higher level material. To me, that belief feels a bit like what the schools always tell me -- that it can't be possible for my kids to know what they know unless I'm some crazy nut making my kids do math 3 hours a day.

Given internet access, the ability to type searches, and really good reading ability, there's not much a kid can't learn if motivated. Some kids are. For a kid who is curious, one thing leads to another and the seeking of information in one area leads to finding information in another area, which leads to new terms to search, etc. Some kids do their own test prep by self-teaching all the time, for the joy of it, not because they are supposed to or are taught a higher level curriculum. For some kids, this can happen quite early. I stopped understanding most of what my son talks about before he got out of elementary.

My son took the ACT very early while in elem and did well. I can understand scoring high in English, reading, and science because those are mostly reason and reading based tests and he's good at reading and reasoning. I was surprised at the percentile scored in math, which was broken down for topics and included high % for courses where he had no exposure that I knew about. When I asked him about the math, he said that none of it was hard and even not having geometry or trig, he could figure almost all the questions out if he was given enough time. He had to rush a bit and didn't figure them all out, but certainly managed most of them. My experience with PG kids is that they often know many things they "shouldn't" know based on exposure or formal teaching. It shouldn't be surprising that a kid who can self-teach reading can also self-teach math.

I confess that I always found the Explore scores taken as DYS levels to be low. I suspect that the group taking such tests are not in the top 5% as expected (most talent searches require parent agreement that their children had some subscore in the top 5%), but rather something like top 1/3 or 1/4 of ability tests. It's not unusual for a kid with multiple tests given in ability and achievement over time to have some subscore at 95%. Many schools offer GT screening for all kids, so you wouldn't even have to be seeking out testing options to have such results. Even if parents are always telling the truth, the sample is likely not really a GT sample. And if that's true, then how can we figure out what level would really be 99% or 99.9?

The most surprising part of the Explore for us was the Science. I expected this to be her weakest area due to not having the exposure in school. She aced that one, though, and as far as we can tell from what our kids reported, it actually required minimal content knowledge.

I found this with ds10 as well - he got a 22, which is in the 95th%-ile for 8th graders - and he has NO interest in science. They do almost no science in elementary school and it is not a topic about which he chooses to learn.

(As a current 6th grader, she is in Honors Algebra.)

Is this a normal option for 6th graders or is this because of outside testing? Here, where 9th grade algebra is the norm, it would be very unusual to allow this.

I think it's important to realize that not all kids who score at very high levels on such tests have been test prepped or formally taught higher level material. To me, that belief feels a bit like what the schools always tell me -- that it can't be possible for my kids to know what they know unless I'm some crazy nut making my kids do math 3 hours a day.

I'm sorry if my post came across this way - I absolutely did NOT mean that. I would consider "exposure," though, to include self teaching, out of self desire. Heck, if the SAT tested train knowledge, my son would score 800, and it bores dh and me to tears.

I confess that I always found the Explore scores taken as DYS levels to be low. I suspect that the group taking such tests are not in the top 5% as expected (most talent searches require parent agreement that their children had some subscore in the top 5%), but rather something like top 1/3 or 1/4 of ability tests.

I don't have a strong opinion on this. Both my kids who took EXPLORE had no problem exceeding-with room to spare-DYS levels. OTOH, the one child whom we have had tested and for whom we at least have test data showing to be PG+ is not one that I imagine would have scored particularly highly on EXPLORE. She was never interested in sitting at a computer or even sitting with books. She was very active, very artsy, very musical as a younger child (she now works as a research analyst, so she did become more focused on traditional academics). The IQ is there and math and science have come quite easily to her, but she certainly had no interest in self-learning it while in elementary.
I am also curious why your son would take the ACT very early while in elementary. To me, that does show parent interest/motivation of some sort, since it's unusual to take it even in middle school, and most kids can't sign up on their own. Again, I'm not saying that's bad in any way and I'm not suggesting that you are pushing. I guess I'm just wondering about the changes in Talent Search over the past MANY years and how all the resources out there (for self study, classes, enrichment, etc) have changed things.

I don't think that this is bad AT ALL - I'm truly just curious. I'm comparing three different groups of gifted kids- my own generation, my oldest kids (now adults) and my younger ones (elementary/middle). Each group has had many more options for learning, including self learning (my older kids didn't have Khan Academy, Art of Problem Solving, or even a home computer or TV when they were young). It honestly started as more of a philosophical musing... not as an accusation against any parent.

The full answer to that question is a long one, but the 6th grade algebra placement had everything to do with internal testing/acceleration on the part of the district, and nothing (or little) to do with outside testing. Our neighborhood middle school offers one section (25 kids?) of Honors Algebra that has only 6th and 7th graders- but it may be the only public school in our state to do so. And the class is taught by a teacher with an MS in Math, another rarity.

Here's how our kids ended up in Algebra in 6th grade. Historically, our district has given 5th graders a math test for placement in 6th. In 4th grade, our kids (twins) were invited by the district to take this test, without any real explanation of why - but we said yes. It turns out the test is also used as a qualifier for a district wide math pull out for 5th graders. Our kids' 3-5 school is a differentiation-R-us, pullouts-R-bad kind of school, so when they heard we were considering signing the kids up for the pullout (dd had the district-wide high score on the qualifier), they (principal/teacher) went through the roof.

After tense discussions a compromise was reached -- the kids WOULD be taught the curriculum used in the pullout, except that they would receive the curriculum from their classroom teacher in 5th grade and would NOT attend the pullout. As a result, when the actual 6th grade placement process came around at the end of 5th, they wound up with a placement in Algebra.

Same with my DS. He has not read any science book at home for a long time, but still got 25 last year and 24 this year. DS used to be a science kid and his teacher let Him lecture 1st graders about sun/moon/earth season relationship once. Now his interest has shifted totally from science (especially chemistry) into alchemy and mythology. They do have science in school, covers from force and motion to weathering and corrosion, all just barely introduction, nothing in depth according to DS.

The Talent Search testing may become meaningless only if you accept that single set of nubmers as the ultimate final word on your child's ability. The Explorer is styled as an achievement test, but I think it is only an achievement test if you are either an 8th grader or have learned 7th grade curriculum.

There is obviously a continuum of grades/ages/curriculum coverages/preparations of the test-takers so the extent to which it serves as an achievement versus an abilities measure may varied considerably. For my 3rd graders, who did not prepare beyond looking at the sample questions in the packet, the Explorer is more of an abilities test than a true achievement test. For example, neither child has studied science curriculum above 3rd grade, but DS scored a 20 while DD scored a 17 as 8-year-olds. As a matter of fact, while DS does have some interest in science/technology (so may have inadvertently exposed himself)DD hates Science and has a decided aversion to all things non-fiction so I know you do not need any exposure to do decently on the Explorer. Of course, I am not saying that DD's 17 in Science is a great score, but that you can do decently (63rd percentile) compared to 8th graders without any interest/preparation/exposure if you have good reading comprehension and logic skills.

Regarding the SAT CR, I have definite opinions as I considered teaching prep courses (SAT/LSAT) part-time ages ago. According to the stats, reading comprehension was the one category that these prep courses were least successful in raising the scores by any considerable amount. Unlike the other areas, there aren't tricks or discrete/limited content to master. Reading comprehension (at those levels) takes a longer period of time to raise significantly than test-takers typically spend preparing. Of course, that may no longer be true as schools now have freshmen take the PSAT and generally make test prep available to all. I am going back a quarter of a century, but it was not so crazy that I did not prep beyond taking the PSAT and took the SAT once. Of course, had I not scored in the 99th percentile, I may have considered taking the SAT again. My situation would likely be unheard of today.

I've only read the last two replies here, but I did want to chime in that the science test on the Explore is probably one of the more g loaded subtests on the test, especially for younger kids, in that it isn't testing science knowledge so much as logic and reasoning ability. It is, therefore, less dependent on the child having exposure and less subject to prep as the pp mentions for the CR part of the SAT.

Both of my girls did well on the science test of the Explore through talent search as well; actually I think that they got the same score on that subtest in 4th grade -- the one grade in which they both took it. One of mine is heavily into science and the other one not so much so, but she apparently has good enough ability in the areas it is testing none the less.

We are no longer participating in talent search, though for a variety of reasons. Dd13 is in high school now and, although you can participate in 9th, I'm not sure that those scores wouldn't show up on a more "permanent" record once you're in high school. Dd11 isn't interested and we were part of that group who went through the difficult experience a year or so back when it turned out the talent search agencies were administering questionnaires to our kids about motivation, self perceptions regarding ability, etc. before the Explore w/out telling the parents. I was not totally happy with the way that went even though the practice was discontinued after it came to public light.

Cricket2, I had not heard of this issue and don't quite understand what the problem was--were they trying to do some kind of psychological study without the parents' permission? Or trying to screen kids for how well they thought they would do in school or some other program? We're new to this stuff and it's good to know what to look out for.

The thread would be so old that I can't find it, but there was a huge long thread and discussion about this a year or so back when it came to light. Apparently for years the major talent search agencies were essentially conducting studies of our kids during the Explore without our permission or knowledge. The kids were given questionnaires before the test with questions like, "are boys or girls better at math?" and, "do you think that you are better at math or reading?"

The survey ran along the lines of Carol Dweck's work that kids who believed that they did well b/c they were just naturally able were more likely to give up when tasks were hard vs. kids who believed that hard work mattered in success. Part of the concern, aside from the lack of permission to administer the questionnaires, was implanting an idea in kids' minds right before they take a hard test.

One of the parents here found out about it from her child, asked the local talent search, and posted here about it. That turned into a lot of us contacting our local talent searches and they were all in on this together. My local TS director admitted that she had always felt bad about not informing parents, that it didn't feel right, but none the less she didn't inform or ask our permission even if it didn't feel right and kept allowing it to happen year after year.

All of the TS agencies insisted that the data was not being used for anything b/c no informed consent had been gathered, but it apparently had been going on for many years none the less. When all of the complaints started coming in and some of us also contacted the agency that administers the Explore, they all agreed to discontinue it.

My kids never participated in talent search again after that, though.

If a student does better on the SAT in 11th grade than in 9th, I doubt the presence of the 9th grade SAT score will harm the student's chance of admission at a selective school -- but this is speculation.

ETA: Princeton Review http://www.princetonreview.com/sat-score-choice.aspx says this:

[M]ost colleges want to see all of your scores. And most colleges already consider only your highest scores (by section or by test date) when making admissions decisions.

Let's say you take the SAT Reasoning Test in June and earn a 610 Math, 520 Critical Reading and 580 Writing, for a cumulative score of 1710. Then you take it again in October and earn a 590 Math, 640 Critical Reading and 620 Writing, for a much better cumulative score of 1850.

You might be tempted to use score choice and withhold your June scores. But that would be a mistake. Sending scores from both test dates will help you with schools that consider your highest score from each section (since you earned a higher Math score in June), and it won't hurt you with schools that consider only your highest set of scores. So the mix–and–match schools would give you credit for a cumulative score of 1870, and the highest test date schools would put you down for an 1850.

If you bomb one of the SAT Subject Tests, it may make sense to withhold the score. Just make sure that this does not violate the policy of any of your prospective schools.