I totally get what you are saying Tammy but I look at all these posts about parents meeting with the schools, trying to get appropriate programs. There is a lot of pushing going on to get the appropriate learning environments.
What if you lived in an area that wouldn't look at any scores except the OLSAT test. So your PG kid wouldn't get a shot at great accelerated program unless they scored in the 99th percentile (which has a poor correlation with IQ until later grades and they had to do this in pre-K). And then all the 99th scoring kids went into a lottery for those spots.
No amount of cajoling would change anything and you lived in a neighborhood where kids were struggling with learning to count 1-10 in K. What would you really do?
I think that until you face that, theories are fine but not actionable. Since the Dept of Justice threatened with the lawsuit, the NYC DOE set down the strict guidelines and no exceptions. My friend's child had a raw score of 167 on the SBV for the Hunter test and didn't get in because he didn't interview well and I have met the kid but the competition was tough. In our case, DD just said she didn't want to go there in the interview. And the OLSAT was terrible last year. She would have needed special ed based on the results. This year, 99th. And our options last year was the Jesuit school where she became the teacher's helper -- in K. And that is a really good school.
I think as we go through serious budget cuts across states, the gifted programs are at great risk -- just like the 70s when the majority felt gifted kids could manage. And whatever I have to do to try and give my kid the options, I will do.
And to Kriston's point, yes a kid could test again and get into DYS, but what about the other way, where a kid that is in, doesn't score so high later on but a kid that always scores at that level doesn't ever get in. What about that kid, who at 140 would really benefit also? Since the other kids in the program drop to that level and benefit?
Ren
