Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment NYC Private Elementary Schools to Drop Test

I have to say I did very little to help our kids "learn" other than sitting on the sideline watching them explore. The younger one never had a book read to him yet he still figured out how to read phonetically right after he turned 2 ...about the same age his brother was when he figured out how to do math addition. They both like PBS tv shows, ebooks and video games as their preferred source of "education". I'm sure they could do even "more" if I was more actively involved in their learning but even without it, they still stand out a lot when compared to their friends / age mates.

... I should add ... it's not that I didn't want to be involved, they just did not let me. Any help from me would turn into big meltdowns and attitude.

Well, maybe not.

CB's own data from 2013 shows that over 40% of the members of the high school class of 2013 who failed to earn a 1550+ score on the SAT (about 60% of test takers earned those scores) had taken Honors/AP coursework.

Hmmm... so ~24% of test taking, presumably "college-bound" high school students got pretty much no discernable benefit from "advanced coursework" which was available to them.

Just putting butts in seats isn't really helping anyone if the heads attached don't have reasonable fit with the environment. It also doesn't benefit those who DO belong in that environment for instructional time to be wasted on the 1 in 4 who shouldn't really be there.

the ERB is the WPSSI but with a few sections removed just like Hunter does for SBV.

For the privates - its not picking names out of hat - or maybe just a special hat - then it becomes money, parental connections, do you like the kid at the playdate - this gives a measurement - not a perfect one but at least somewhat objective.

DeHe

these questions are not the issue in NYC - because in NYC the money follows the kid - so its choice to set up these programs or not - and right now the chancellor of the system does not believe in gifted ed - and says this directly. But he is gone soon and in comes the new mayor and education is present in the current election so who knows.

DeHe

Hmm. So if it's that easy to game an IQ test, at least for a 5yo, what does that really mean?

Could the system be similarly gamed for an 8yo? A 14yo?

What does this suggest about the validity of IQ tests for young children?

(I was imagining this ERB as a rather obtainable list of rote knowledge/skills--count to 20, write the alphabet, ID colors, tie your shoes, read these 40 sight words, add to 10)

Absolutely agreed!

Please accept my apologies if I was unclear. To clarify, my point was about increasing the supply of advanced academics to meet demand for advanced academics. Cluster grouping based on readiness and ability was mentioned, as was individualized pacing, school-within-a-school, and a book about customized learning with a chart and quote about not squelching internal motivation. Please understand I was not addressing heads without a reasonable fit to the environment of advanced academics.

To be politically correct, and to score well on the news media's public school rankings which award points for unrestricted access to courses/programs such as AP and IB, many high schools will allow and encourage students to stretch and take courses for which they do not have readiness or ability. Possibly you are addressing this practice? The statistics you shared may be reflective of this.

Understood. To simplify things, I made this about advanced academics, not about gifted ed (not trying to discern between intrinsically gifted, hothoused, hardworking, nor high potential from impoverished backgrounds).

Meanwhile, what is one article that you would choose to introduce someone in that position to the existence of gifted kids and their need for an educational experience paced differently and including true peers?

Exactly-- just hothousing to appear ready isn't the same thing as being ready.

Testing only identifies the appearance of the thing. Ergo, it is subject to "gaming" the system, which skews things markedly on the side of high SES and test-prepping insanity. Which is why I strongly suspect that the situation is actually far worse than CB's statistics would indicate, since that test is quite coachable and since those stats blur the picture produced by the practice of super-scoring.

Allowing open access to high-rigor programs is fine on the one hand, because it removes the prestige associated with acceptance, and it's an important step toward a more equitable arrangement with low SES students and those from circumstances that have limited performance...

But not so fine on the other, because it really does water down the instructional/learning environment if 1 in 4 students has no business in that environment to start with.

Kids taking AP English really should not need 2 weeks of instructional time on formatting and course policies, KWIM? And no, that is not a hypothetical example. That is from a real AP syllabus.

My major problem here is that ultimately, meeting demand probably is intrinsically operating at odds with meeting NEED. The two things are definitely not the same.

I don't think there is a bright line separating test preparation and what most in this forum would consider normal parenting. A 5yo who knows his letters, numbers, colors, and shapes will do better on an IQ test than one who does not. Middle and upper class parents will teach these things as a matter of course and will provide toys and books to develop these skills. Studies have found that adoption can raise the IQ of children but that much of the increase dissipates by adulthood. The adoptive parents in these studies were not raising their children with IQ tests in mind.