Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment New NYC gifted criterion: 2/3 NNAT, 1/3 OLSAT

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!