G&T: 45 percent more kids qualify
The Department of Education just released statistics on the current crop of students who applied for gifted and talented programs, citing a whopping 45 percent rise in qualifying students: 3,231 students who will enter kindergarten qualified for G&T programs this year, as opposed to 2,230 last year. A total of 14,822 children sat for the tests, and 22 percent qualified — another rise compared with last year, when 18 percent of 12,410 children tested qualified for G&T seats. To meet the rising demand, the DOE says it “will open as many as 24 new district gifted programs” and create “as many as 150″ new citywide kindergarten seats. On the list of G&T programs offering tours during the next two weeks, there are several schools that have never had a gifted and talented program or have had one in the past but didn’t accept a class of kindergarteners in 2008.
The overall numbers of students who qualify for citywide programs and schools, by scoring at or above the 97th percentile, has risen substantially as well: 1,345 students met or passed that high bar this year, compared with 1,026 last year. Where these students will attend school is a pressing question: The Anderson School will add 25 new seats, for a total of 75 kindergarten seats, according to the DOE, and three new citywide programs will offer 150 places. But even 225 new seats, combined with the 210 kindergarten seats the three citywide schools now offer (according to New York State accountability statistics), adds up to about 435 seats. You don’t need calculus skills to see that’s just under a third of the total of 1,345 qualifying students. It’s not known whether DOE projections estimate that two-thirds of those who qualify for citywide G&T will opt for other programs; it seems entirely possible that an awful lot of families might face disappointment. (NB: See Update below for details.)
While the numbers of children who took the test and scored at or above the 90 percentile increased in many districts, persistent trends continued, as higher numbers of District 2 and District 3 students in Manhattan — 40 and 45 percent, respectively — scores merited G&T seats, compared with 8 and 13 percent of the students’ scores in Districts 7 and 8 in the Bronx. In 31 of the city’s 32 districts, the number of students eligible for G&T programs increased, with the numbers of qualified students doubling in some districts that have had historically low participation.
Click here to see the DOE’s Excel spreadsheet, for district-by-district minutiae. (Or try this pdf version.)
Uptdate, 5pm: Andy Jacob of the DOE wrote to correct an error in the DOE’s release of information. In fact, Anderson will add only 25 new seats, for a total of 75 kindergarten seats next year — and those 25 seats are part of the 150 new seats the DOE plans for citywide G&T programs.
The adjustment makes the admissions math even less hospitable: According to the revised numbers (110 current seats plus 150 new seats), there will be approximately 260 citywide G&T kindergarten seats for more than 1300 eligible students. Basic percentages: The DOE will offer sufficient seats for 20 percent of the total number of eligible students.
Update, 6pm: The Anderson School will reportedly add an additional 25 seats to its first grade program, for a total of 75 seats on the grade.
Update, May 5th: Thanks to Robin Aronow, PhD, for correcting my math: The three citywide schools currently offer 210 seats; the DOE plans to add up to 150 new G&T citywide seats, including the 25 new kindergarten seats at Anderson, for a maximum total of 360 available seats — which tallies roughly to 30 percent of the total number of children who qualified.
Subscribe to 
Toolbar icons by 
is there any info on how many 1st graders qualified this year?
Comment by anon — May 4, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Is there any info. on how many 1st grader spots there will be? Will more spots be opened if a lot of 1st graders qualify? Thanks
Comment by Anon-Mom — May 4, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
how many 99?
Comment by momof2 — May 4, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
today we knew the information about g&t only from insideschools .thanks
Comment by momof2 — May 4, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
bravo, doe. you are offering spots for 20% of eligible city-wide families. and almost half the kids who tested on the UWS qualified. how on earth are you going to deal with this many kids in the g&t program when you can’t even handle providing seats for the kids who are zoned to popular schools? and how is this not going to result in a 2-tiered school system with so many kids qualifying for g&t?
Comment by UWSmom — May 4, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
The audacity of the DOE to wait this long and torture parents in this way. As if it’s not bad enough that the DOE decides to use the OLSAT (one of the only school systems in the country to do so)to determine whether or not your child is “gifted and talented”, determining the track they will take for the next 13 years in public school- A test (along with the Bracken) that CANNOT & DO NOT accurately test 4 & 5 year olds for “giftedness and talent”. How dispicable to know that these tests were sent to the vendor MONTHS ago and after 5 delays they are finally releasing numbers, not to mention they haven’t even sent them to the parents yet!
When I requested the citywide statistics from the DOE, (I know, who am I to do that, I’m just a lolely parent), I wasn’t even given the courtesy of a response. This buearocracy is above the law and out of touch with its constituents- the parents and students of New York City.
Comment by Fed up with DOE — May 4, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Seriously, what the hell? Where are the statistics for entering 1st grade? Do the 1st grade numbers not count?- or am I missing something?
Comment by Fed up with DOE — May 4, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
still can not see the DOE’s Excel spreadsheet, for district-by-district minutiae
Comment by momof2 — May 4, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Momof2, link to spreadsheet seems to be working on this end, not sure why you’re having difficulty. For reasons unknown to me, it can be helpful sometimes to try another browser (ie, Firefox if you’re using Explorer, etc.). Hope you can see your district’s results soon.
Comment by helen — May 4, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
thank you,helen
Comment by momof2 — May 4, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
As a layperson the only thing I would conclude from this Excel is that prepping is working & that this G&T program is untenable. What was the beef with tracking? As a smarty pants you could be an important part of a neighborhood school & the DOE would not have to deal with this G&T moving target. More importantly, we could have a flexible system where children could be accelerated & decelerated at appropriate stages in their education, not labeled right after their 4th bday.
While the DOE is unlikely to come out with proper analysis of their own numbers I sure hope that articles in the next few days might offer some critical analysis from educators, not just reporting horror stories from parents (I don’t mean IS, more like the NYT). Maybe it is time to take some measure?
Comment by Anonymous — May 4, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
OLSAT scores have a very low correlation with giftedness compared to many other test scores. I’m disappointed (but not surprised) that DOE uses it.
My kids have not taken the OLSAT for the G&T programs, so no personal bone to pick, I just think it’s a very poor marker for the academic abilities and skills that are called “giftedness” — AND very easy to prep for, as you can see from that dramatic increase in eligible students!
I just wanted to tell parents that they shouldn’t be judging their child’s “giftedness” by numbers on this one, very inaccurate test.
Comment by brooklyn mom — May 4, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Question: (I’m trying to understand how this has or hasn’t worked in the past). Last year there were 1026 city-wide eligible. How many went to city – wide G&Ts?
Comment by Joe — May 4, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
It seems clear that in the future the DOE needs to go back to its original plan from last year (shelved when certain districts had no qualifiers) for the cutoff to be 95% rather than 90%.
I also agree with previous posters that the OLSAT is a terrible choice. While it may be used for gifted programs in many other parts of the country, none of those use it for grades K & 1, when it is a totally inappropriate test.
While there were some problems in past years when testing was done on a school by school or district by district basis, it was preferable to centralizing the process in such a huge school system. As such, the process is too unwieldy for one agency (particularly the less than competent DOE) to handle. Ditto for the regular K admissions process. It makes so much more sense for admissions to be handled by people who know the lay of the land in their own area of the City.
Comment by a parent — May 4, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
I’m confused — I thought the kids had to score in the 90th percentile to be eligible, yet the spreadsheet it showing an average of 22% of the district kids who took it being eligible. Upon what population is the 90th percentile based?
Comment by Melissa — May 4, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
It’s my understand that the percentiles are based on the national population.
Comment by Christy — May 4, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
parent @ 8:36pm: I hear the whole thing about the OLSAT being inappropriate for K&1. On what research is that assumption being made? Could somebody give me a link or some other research.
Comment by Doug — May 4, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Doug- Child psychologists nationwide, as well as eductaors (not employed by DOE) agree that using the OLSAT on 4 & 5′s is innapproriate- it is a poor indictaor. Rather, the SB and other tests are more age appropriate for 4 & 5′s
Comment by Anonymous — May 4, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Is the NYT on the DOE payroll? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/education/05gifted.html?hpw
This is how they account for the increase in qualifiers:
Andrew Jacob, an Education Department spokesman, credited improvements to the city’s prekindergarten programs and families’ increasing familiarity with the new admissions process, but said that officials did not yet have a “definitive explanation.”
When it comes to education why can’t the NYT use the critical lens they do elsewhere in the paper?
The reality is “increasing familiarity with the new admissions process” means prepping works.
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 5:45 am
11:21pm. Yes, but what research has been done? Even if a child psychologist has an opinion about it, it is just that: an opinion. Has there been research?
Comment by Doug — May 5, 2009 @ 7:03 am
5:45am: I am very sure there has been prepping BUT unless it is an opinion piece in the NYT you can’t just write an article about speculations. I am very sure the Times will not do a thorough investigation into this topic but maybe some other paper will do that.
Comment by Clemens — May 5, 2009 @ 7:05 am
Clemens-
5:45 here. Not arguing for piece repeating speculations. Not really the point. Would like to hear the take of education thinkers quoted in a journalistic piece: the former Eduwonkette, Diane Ravitch, etc. I am not saying that the NYT become the next Urban Baby. I do agree that the News & Post sometimes put the NYT to shame with their education coverage–not necessarily the quality, but the quantity.
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 8:24 am
Is this the test?
http://pearsonassess.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=OLSAT&Mode=detail&Leaf=2testingmaterials&dsrc=015-8611-56X#ISBN2
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 8:58 am
Of course parents prep their kids. I did and so did everyone else I know. In fact, we all shared prep materials and it didn’t cost me a penny. Why would I send a 4-year-old in to take a lengthy standardized test with no preparation?
Also, if everyone preps and then scores are based on a percentage then the most gifted kids will still be IDed. Instead of trying to stop prepping, the materials should be free and online. The DOE did in fact provide a short practice test, by the way.
Comment by Jen — May 5, 2009 @ 9:49 am
I’m sorry, but not everyone preps their kids. We didn’t. And my 1st grader received a score of 98 last year (with no prep). Still awaiting the score for my Pre-K, but we didn’t prep him either.
Comment by Anon — May 5, 2009 @ 10:41 am
I too am the mother of a current first grader in a self-contained “G&T” class. Did not prep my child….did not even realize that you could, nor do I believe that you should. All of the students in my child’s class scored at the citywide eligible level (97 and above). Would not have even considered sending my child to another school as we are fortunate to have an exceptional zoned school. My second child took the test this year as well. Again, did not even consider “prepping” my child. Really, prep a 4 year old? Laughable. If the children cannot meet the criteria on their own, so be it. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to achieve by doing this and what impact this message might send to your child.
I continue to wonder what this whole “gifted” concept even means. Let’s try to continue to focus on our children’s happiness and needs and leave ours at the door.
Comment by G&T parent in Queens — May 5, 2009 @ 11:24 am
We had a poll on this topic a few weeks ago. Parents were very divided over whether or not to prep their children for the OLSAT. http://insideschools.org/blog/?url=http://insideschools.org/blog/2009/01/30/olsat-test-prep-poll-voters-split/
Comment by Lindsey Whitton Christ — May 5, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Lindsey, Helen, et al. -
Any 1st grade test results released? Those of us who had no K seats last year and are trying to find out what’s going on in our area with 1st grade are DYING to know. Anything released by DOE? And, as always, many thanks for your coverage: the best in NYC!
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 11:54 am
We have asked DOE for details on G&T tests for first-grade seats, and hope they will provide us with the total number of children who took the test, as well as those who scored at or above the 90th percentile and at or above the 97th percentile. We’ve also asked if they have a spreadsheet showing district-by-district data, like the one they prepared for kindergarten G&T; stay tuned for particulars whenever they’re available.
Comment by Helen — May 5, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Helen -
If/when they do provide 1st grade numbers, remember there’s a number of current K children in Queens and Bronx (Staten Island too, I believe) that were given letters waiving them from this year’s test and allowing their last year score to stand for 1st grade entry. Now, those scores are only for district placement, those who wanted to be reconsidered for citywide had to retest. Confused? It’s a tangled web … but a number of students will have 2 different test scores to consider for this year’s ranking application … and if there’s any insight you can offer, it’s much appreciated! We’re facing an information black hole and a confusing situation. Thank you!
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry, want to clarify: so will these “grandfathered” K students have their results from last year listed with those who just took the test, is there an addendum? Etc.
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
I want to say a bit more about why I prepped my kid for the test because I think there’s an assumption that people do it as a way of gaining a sneaky advantage. But that’s not my main motivation. The main reason was because my child does not do well in cirumstances where he is caught off guard by new things. He’s a bit of a perfectionist and can be resistant to new experiences. I was worried that if his first experience with a standardized test was negative and scary for him, he would forevermore associate testing with fear and anxiety. By working with him for a few weeks on what the “puzzles” on the test would be like beforehand, he was able to go in and take the test with a sense of ease and know what to expect. Since all kids are tested so much, this was important to me. I care more about him feeling comfortable than about what his score is.
Comment by Jen — May 5, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Anonymous,
I had exchanged emails and phone calls with DOE back in last November on this eligibility for Queens/Bronx/Staten Island kids who are entering 1st grade this coming Sept. and scored above 90 last year. Their answer is, this year’s score will be used ONLY for citywide programs. For example, if you child scored 96 last year, 98 this year, but couldn’t get into one of the citywide programs (as seats are not guaranteed), they will use 96 for district wide program placement.
As a district 28 parent, I’m very disappointed to see that the only 2 district wide programs available are both at less desirable schools. My daughter (entering 1st grade in Sept.) scored 98 last year, but no K program in Queens for her then. Now I don’t even know if I should send her to one of the two G&T programs available…
Comment by Sarah Mom — May 5, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
It looks like there will be more eligible kids in District 28 than last year. How to accomodate them only in those 2 schools while there were 4 schools last years? Puzzled …
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Big news!! I just heard that all the kids on the PS 41/3 waitlist are going to get seats at PS 41 or 3! They’re cancelling the Pre-K program to make room.
Comment by anon — May 5, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
According to the Excel file, in district 28, 71 kids eligible for K last year. All of them will be eligible for 1st grade G&T this year. And most likely the number will increase as many kids did not take the test last year have taken the test this year. Does it still hold that “anyone scored 90 and above will be guanranteed a seat in district wide programs” as it was last year?
Comment by Sarah Mom — May 5, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
If there are more eligible kids this year in D28, but less number of schools to accommodate them, then obviously there is going to be a problem, and not every parent will be satisfied with their child’s placement. Overcrowding in schools will continue too. Hopefully parents’ good sense will prevail and temper their reactions in dealing with the situation.
Comment by a parent — May 5, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Prep a 4 year old? Really? Ask pre-k teachers if this is really possible. There is nothing wrong with exposing a test taker to the published practice test so that seeing the page on test day is not a shocking reveal. Otherwise, the concept of sitting a 4 year old down to do test prep is abhorrent and unrealistic. Shame on the DOE for publishing stats without reporting test results to parents first!
Comment by H. H. — May 5, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Has anyone received g&t test results for either K or 1st grade yet?
Comment by masha — May 5, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
And the qualified teachers for these students will be found….where?????
Comment by Anonymous — May 5, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Helen — can you get clarification about the eligibility of the citywide schools for those who have their scored grandfathered? My son received a score of 98 last year and I did not test him again this year because there were no city-wide at a Queens site at the time. Does that mean that he will be ineligibile to apply to the Queens city-wide this year? My thinking was why jepordize his score by retesting if I didn’t plan on sending him out to Manhattan to a city-wide. Had I known they would open up a Queens site, maybe I should’ve retested him again? We’re anxiously awaiting the infamous school selection letter hoping that the DOE does not forget about the children who have their score grandfathered from last year.
Comment by Russ' mom — May 5, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
anonymous at 1:17 and 1:18 yesterday, and Russ’s mom, we understand (and share) your concerns about first-grade placements for kids who qualified for G&T programs last year but for whom there were no kindergarten seats. It’s one of our questions for DOE and we’ll report details as we have them.
As for citywide eligibility, to my best understanding, children had to test this year to be eligible this year (last year’s score holds for district programs, in areas where there were none). We will confirm this as well.
Comment by Helen — May 6, 2009 @ 8:04 am
Russ’ mom,
We have similar cases here. My daughter scored 98 last year and was accepted into TAG. I did not want a long commute (and can’t manage it) so Sarah is now in our zoned school in Queens district 28. I have confirmed with DOE last November (not sure if they have changed their stand by now) that 98 will be used for this year’s 1st grade district wide G&T placement. Whatever score Sarah gets this year, will be used for citywide placement – if she scored 96 this year, she would not be eligible to apply for citywide. In your case, I believe Russ is guaranteed a seat for district wide program, but not eligible for any citywide ones.
Comment by Sarah Mom — May 6, 2009 @ 8:27 am
We just got the results for the test.
Comment by Anonymous — May 6, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
So did we. So, our kid scores over 140 on the Stanford-Binet (high enough to qualify for Mensa) and 99% on the BSRA, but 80% on the OLSAT? I can see where people question the validity of this test.
This whole public school process this year, from result delays, to public K waitlists, to the complete inability of the DOE to synchronize timing of any of this, has been a major fubar. Blessed that we still have private school as an option. I know many don’t.
Comment by Anonymous — May 6, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
are u in or out?
what district r u in?
anyone else get results?
Comment by Anonymous — May 6, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
My son scored 99 on the BRSA last year and 33 on the OLSAT. This year: 93 and 97 = 96 overall. It all depends on the tester. No prep either time.
Comment by Anonymous — May 6, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
I think it is wonderful that the class project for this year’s G&T Ks was to grade these tests and run the statistically analysis.
Comment by anon — May 6, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
AS an educator I am upset by the idea that many parents share that the only good public school educational option for their children is a “G & T” class. I am thrilled to have a WIDE RANGE of learners and personalities in my kindergarten class, and I believe I am meeting the needs of all of them–from those who are accelerated academically to those who have learning disabilities. To me, the idea of “G & T” is a euphamism for tracking (which so often results in segregation along economic lines) and undermines the ideal of the public school classrooom as a microcosm of our democracy.
I encourage ALL parents to proudly place their “gifted” children in their neighborhood school and then to work with other parents to ensure that the school is able to provide quality differentiated teaching for all children.
Comment by Uptown kindergarten teacher — May 6, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
We have not yet rececived Kindergarten test results for our son, and yet today is the start of the grab for seats in the “first-come-first-served” bonanza. Has anyone else NOT received test results yet? Does this mean something? TIA for any help for this new venturer in the maze of the NYC DoE system…..
Comment by Anonymous — May 7, 2009 @ 6:29 am
We haven’t received the 1st grade test results either… Is it “first-come-first-served” this year? Last year it was based on scores/preference. A kid scored 95 got to choose before a kid scored 94, as far as his application was submitted before the deadline.
Comment by Sarah Mom — May 7, 2009 @ 8:37 am
Uptown kindergarten teacher–working to change the educational possibilities in a gen ed school depends on a MAJORITY of the parents working together, and a MAJORITY of the administration helping them. There are too many schools where most of the parents are overwhelmed or disinterested, and the administration entrenched in the way things are. Ten, twenty, even fifty “motivated” parents coming in are not going to be able to do much, at least not in the 5-6 years before their kids are already gone. There have been five long-term NYC school teachers in my family over the past 50 years, and I see the pat advice “Go to your local school and make it better” espoused far too often. As I watched them struggle to help those motivated parents, fighting the inertia of the remaining families and staff…I realized it ain’t all that easy. Now I did choose gen ed over gifted…but I had four excellent gen eds at my disposal (zoned, D3 lottery, charter lotteries–we had a lucky year). For those in one of the more dismal zones, g&t may be the only way to get a decent education in a safe environment. There ARE schools out there that are just plain awful, even in D3.
Comment by Uptown kindergarten parent — May 7, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Dear Uptown Kindergarten Teacher – while I am sure some may share your Utopian ideals, they are not practical in today’s NYC public school system. What are parents to do if they live in a District (like I do) where the vast majority of public school kids don’t even speak English and the average graduation rate at the local public high schools hover around 50 percent? What would you do? Send your kid to the local “gen ed” class in the local public school, sing “Kumbiya” and hope for the best? Sorry, but our kids are not guinea pigs for some social experiemnt. Further, many of us here know very well that parents cannot change a system wrought with fraud and indifference like the DOE. Why should we spend all our energy fighting a system that only changes for the worse?
Comment by VJ — May 7, 2009 @ 9:33 am
We are waitlisted for our zoned school in D2. My son scored a 99 on OLSAT. Has the DOE released information on how many students scored 99? How can I find out more information about the new “ciywides”?
Thanks
Comment by RTN — May 7, 2009 @ 10:58 am
477 last year.for sure there are more 99 this year than last year. doe need let us know the number
Comment by momof2 — May 7, 2009 @ 11:16 am
We got my child’s G&T test scores yesterday, and she is going into first grade. We’re not bothering with the paperwork. We were blessed to be accepted to a new charter school for next year, and that’s the route we’re going. Why? Because, frankly, as well as she did (and she did do well), she won’t get a seat in G&T. She didn’t last year, she won’t next year. It’s a hopeless battle of astronomical proportions that I am bowing out of. My husband and I will continue to enrich her educational experience ourselves as much as possible, and be as active in her new school as humanly possible. The reality of the G&T situation in NYC is just too ridiculous for words. I know my child is going to be fine. And, unless she herself asks for it at some point in her academic future, I will not have her tested again in the NYC public school system. It is an exercise in futility, frustration and insanity.
Comment by parentinNYC — May 7, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Dear VJ,
Move to Connecticut. You will be so much happier.
Comment by anon — May 7, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
An update from my May 6 comment/question. We got our letter from the DOE today and since my DS scored 98, he is indeed eligible for city-wide and district. The selection process is very different this year whereas we have to rank both city-wide and district programs all together instead of separately like last year. So I guess we’ll opt for city-wide 1st choice, 2nd choice preferred district wide, etc. But according to DOE, they must be all selected in order to get anything. Hopefully we won’t get Brooklyn city-wide since we live in Queens.
Thanks Helen for all your information. Without you and this forum, we’d be lost and frustrated parents.
Comment by Russ' mom — May 7, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
I have to agree with Jen — I don’t see what the uproar is over “prepping” — how is it different from any other time when children study before a school test? My son and I used the practice test provided by the DOE as a way to talk about what to expect and to review what he has learned in Pre-K. I don’t feel that it gave him any special advantage – it just helped him feel comfortable with the process and understand what was expected of him.
Comment by Brooklyn Mom in G&T — May 8, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Score or priority? If student A with 99% selects district/citywide program X as 2nd priority and student B with 97% select district/citywdie program X as 1st priority. Which student gets the seat?
Comment by QueensFH — May 10, 2009 @ 7:17 am
99 will get seat from last year.QueenFH,do you live in Forest Hill?what school do you like best?PS174?PS220?PS55?I am not sure I’ll choice one of them .
Comment by momof2 — May 10, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Thanks for the info. Yes, Forest Hills. We live closest to 174 so we’ll put that as our top district program. Based on nonG&T parent feedback it’s an ok school. Not great or bad. Haven’t heard anything about 220 or 55 assume is at best equal to 174.
Comment by QueensFH — May 10, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
agree with you.we will only pick ps174 after citywide.do you have any idea about citywide?which one do you rank first ?anderson/nest+m or the one in Astoria?
Comment by momof2 — May 10, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
It seems that the test results for many students entering first grade who took the test at PS9 have been “lost.” Perhaps this is why the first grade results are not provided. My child was one of them and we are waiting to see what will be done.
Comment by Anonymous — May 11, 2009 @ 9:32 am
re: #58 above “But according to DOE, they must be all selected in order to get anything” — Anderson open house attendees were informed by the principal today that the DOE wording was vague — you do not have to rank all the provided schools in the application UNLESS you want to be guaranteed entrance in one of them. otherwise, just rank the schools that you would send your child in the order of preference.
Comment by arno — May 11, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
i believe that ignorance is the reason for poverty and the idea that some have that black and latino kids score poor on tests is an excuse. Stop the excuses my son lives in the south bronx and scored 97 on bsra and 99 on oslat. I just went to anderson tour and i feel that the program needs more diversity. But what i don’t understand is why people from district 3 or 1 need G&t programs because their zone schools are all very good. Stop making excuses and help your children reach for the top. The reason why childre of color are not in more G&T programs is because of their parents low morale and motivation. Every kid has jordans in the hood why not a tutor with that clothes budget
Comment by proud parent — May 12, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
re:66 not sure where you are coming from, but be mindful of the generalizations. THE parents of children of color is an absolute/ inclusive statement and doesn’t embody represent ALL parents of children of color. Therefore, in most cases even when parents are motivated and have high expectations for their children’s success, they unfortunately live in impoverished neigbhorhoods with minimal resources, poor performing schools and do not always have access to the information.
I am blessed not be in any of these circumstances, currently entering the public school system and very resourceful, however I still find that I am chasing my tail with the DOE system and “culture”. To date we have not received our test scores and when contacting all appropriate departments in the DOE I have yet to receive a consistent response for a simple question.
Comment by 11614 — May 13, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
66: funny that you use the word “ignorance” because that is what you are. Not all “people of color” have low morale and motivation and buy their kids’ Jordan’s. I am an African American mother who loves her kids and want the best for them (as well as many of my African American friends who are mothers). My kids have never owned a pair of Jordan’s and I refuse to buy them clothing that costs more than mine. I prepared my son the G&T test everyday, no matter how tired I was from a hard day’s work, and he still did not don’t make the cut, which was surprising to me. I plan to continue my efforts so my kids can succeed no matter what because someday they’ll run into people like you and they have to be prepared. I hope you teach your kids acceptance with your efforts.
Comment by Parent — May 13, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
I live in district 27 and still have not received notice on G&T results.
Comment by cynthia — May 14, 2009 @ 1:09 am
My daughter scored a 99. I am planning to rank Anderson and Nest+ in the citywide. From what it seems, ranking your first choice is the key. If you are lucky, you get in. Rank 2, probably has no meaning. Just hope to get into the district. Any suggestions of where the probably would be higher? Anderson has 75 seats, compared to Nest+ which has 109. But Nest+ probably attracts a larger crowd from the boroughs. Then again, the density of Kindergarten population on the UWS and UES side is pretty high too. Any suggestions are welcome.
Comment by StressedNYCMom — May 15, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
70…I look at it as this, #1 is your dream scenerio, rank #2 has to be a realistic 2, there is a great chance your daughter will get her second chance. The second-place on your list is as important as what you put first. BTDT last year and we received our 2nd choice and so did many others we know.
Comment by Anonymous — May 15, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
someone posted that there were 477 99s last year — out of a 1000 or so that scored 97 and above? How is that possible?
Comment by brooklynparent — May 18, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
re #67: “Cobb Kimberly” is the best person to give you an immediate response by email, hope it helps as the deadline is Wednesday.
Comment by Queens proud mom — May 18, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
As a parent who lives in Queens with a child that scored a 99 I am extremly dissappointed my son can not attend one 3 city wide programs in NYC, there should be bus service so that all children who qualify can thrive and have the same opportunities regardless of borough of residence!
Comment by Queens proud mom — May 18, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Something looks wrong in the G and T results, especially in District 2 and 3. Like any other human natural property (weight, height, etc.), intelligence follows a bell curve. There should be fewer children in each percentile category as one goes toward 100. But in D3, 45% of the children scored above 90 and 21% above 97 (normally, given the 45%, it should less than 10%). These results do not follow a bell curve — something did happen that changed the normal, i.e. natural, distribution. I do want to speculate about the causes but the DOE should question a testing process that allows for such abnormal results.
Comment by Flower — May 18, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
Watch the blog for a coming update on G&T placement, for both citywide and district programs, that will aim to answer many of the questions raised here and elsewhere.
Flower, your observation of what seems a disproportionate representation of students from Districts 2 and 3 is correct –and entirely consistent with history, as student from D 2 and 3 generally comprise outsize fractions of G&T populations, and (eventually) in the selective, SHSAT high schools. The bell curve only holds if the population of every district shares similar demographics, economics and levels of educational attainment, which (sadly) is not the case across all of the city’s 32 districts. The other big disparity, especially before high school (and in the pre-college race), is the ability to afford concentrated, high-level test prep. Re: the HS testing process, DOE will not evaluate the test for potential bias; it has also not permitted independent, outside study to consider the question.
Comment by Helen — May 19, 2009 @ 8:23 am
I agree with Helen that test prep exists ind D2 and D3 for all grade levels, including HS testing, that affects this percentages. I have MANY friends in those districts that used test prep for kindergarten G&T. I decided against it because at the time of testing, my daughter was 4 years old and didn’t need the stress.
Comment by Me2004 — May 19, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Helen:
Many of us in D 30 with rising 2nd graders still have not received results yet. And, we are still uncertain how the cutting of PS 122′s 2nd grade G and T class next year will affect whether all qualified students will get placed. We can’t get answers as to how many in the District qualified…only the zone which is irrelevant. We want the program at 122 restored for kids born in 2002.
Comment by Astoria parent — May 19, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Flower- your observation and concern is one I share. Even if we assume that the distribution was not affected by test prep and is simply a manifestation of the fact that D2 and D3 families tend to be more highly educated, it still causes one to question why the DOE doesn’t do something differently.
Perhaps some of the resources being poured into G&T classes in communities that are already thriving need to be used to reduce class sizes in districts/zones where the kids may be even more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of overcrowded classrooms…Or maybe add “enrichment” to those schools where the gen ed kids are struggling and could really benefit. Just a thought…
Comment by Bronx mom — May 19, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Bronx Mom, I understand what you’re saying, but take a closer look at the numbers and you will find that by no stretch of the imagination are there a lot of “resources being poured into G&T classes in communities that are alrady thriving”. In my children’s thriving G&T program, class sizes are uniformly large, and precious few of the DOE’s (or other govt’s) extra resources (read $$$) are available to us. In this sense, having G&T classes helps conserve resources as it frees up teachers in gen ed programs from having to cover quite as wide a range of abilities in their own overcrowded classrooms.
Comment by a parent — May 19, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
I am filling out the online application and while entering sibling’s info my daugther’s school name is missing from the list. I tried to manually enter it but it won’t take it, saying to pick one from the list. Is anyone having similar problem. What should I do? Should I mail the paper application? Thanks.
Comment by Mosaamat — May 19, 2009 @ 8:07 pm