“The Search for Intelligent Life in Kindergarten”
 |
New York City schools are featured in one chapter of best-selling author Po Bronson’s latest book “Nurture Shock,” says The New York Times. What landed our schools in the limelight? Bronson and co-author Ashley Merriman say the city has gotten testing for gifted programs all wrong, awarding a very high a percentage of seats to very young students — with little retesting as kids get older.
As many of our readers know all too well, here in the city, kindergarten admission to gifted and talented programs is based on the results of tests taken by preschoolers. For the high-scorers who make the cut, a kindergarten seat guarantees a gifted education through the 5th grade. And for the luckiest students, like those at the Anderson School, a seat earned by a preschooler guarantees a gifted education through middle school.
In a chapter titled “The Search for Intelligent Life in Kindergarten,” Bronson and Merriman present research that suggests tests taken before kindergarten are not a good indicator of future academic success. They add that many test creators endorse retesting children at an older age to ensure fairness in gifted and talented tracking. So while a standardized admissions process with uniform cut-off scores makes acceptance to the programs more equitable, it needs improvement.
According to the Times, Anna Commitante, the head of the city’s G&T programs, noted that a few hundred spots in gifted classes are reserved for older children in later grades. She also said that students have the opportunity to join “enrichment clusters” designed to challenge high-achievers.
And so, the great G&T debate continues. What do you think? Should the city wait to test kids until they’re older (around 3rd grade)? Is that too late for parents hoping to escape under-performing neighborhood schools? Or should G&T students just be retested in a later grade? Please comment and let us know below!
Subscribe to 
I did not test my son for g&t in kindegarten and when I did have him tested in 2nd grade there was no room at the gifted and talented school in our neighborhood even with his 99. What I take issue with is that the Chancellor thinks that there are enrichment clusters at schools. My son has done nothing for the last 3 years except sit and read and talk (to other high achievers) while being ignored by his teachers because he can already pass the state tests. There are NO enrichment clusters at his school. I would love it if the schools were mandated to have enrichment. I would love it if they would take a group of kids and educate them at their own reading and math levels. But his school refuses and I have talked to the teaches and principal many times over the years. If the DOE thinks that schools are offering enrichment he should take a closer look. My son’s school is not.
Comment by parent — August 26, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Testing children at 4 years of age with an assessment to “giftedness” that is not age appropriate, is ridiculous. The school my eldest daughter attends had a gifted program that began in 2nd grade. Now, the school is being forced by the DOE to begin the program in Kindergarten, despite the fact that most parents in D30 were fine with how it was. Kindergarten is not even mandatory so why start there? Also, one test is not an indication of how well a child will do in a g and t program and should never be the sole criteria, whether it’s for entry or to remain in a g and t program. And, for parents who aren’t in the “know”, by the time they learn about g and t testing (once their child is in public school), there are no slots left. The DOE, in its effort to provide equity, has only widened the gap and should rethink its testing policy and test later. Do away with gifted Kindergarten, and 1st grade for that matter!
Comment by Astoria parent — August 26, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
There’ll always be imperfections in any system, and I agree wholeheartedly with the article and book’s point that the early introduction of the G&T program is to a large degree a sop for middle class/upper middle class who might otherwise bail on the public schools.
So I don’t think we’ll see testing or the start of the G&T program pushed back to 2nd or 3rd or 4th grade, where it belongs. But there absolutely has to be a better and more transparent and more comprehensive method for testing kids into the program (this considerable gender imbalance, e.g., is something the DOE needs to acknowledge and discuss and investigate), there absolutely has to be a way of providing seats for EVERY kid who tests in after the entry grade (a “few hundred” seats doesn’t cut it), and there absolutely has to be a fair and even-handed way of evaluating kids in a G&T to make sure they still belong there.
Comment by Anonymous — August 27, 2009 @ 9:56 am
the way it is if u get in in kindergarten you are good but even in first grade your chances of getting your first 3 picks are slim with a 99% score The whole G&T program should be re-evulated because if u have money for special education you should guarantee a seat for every G&T student
Comment by hate TWEED — August 27, 2009 @ 10:31 am
as said KINDERGARTEN IS NOT MANDATORY I did not test my son at 4 I waited a year and he scored a 99% and i did not get one of my two top choices and if u look at the ethnic backrounds of NEST and ANDERSON you will think black and latino do not score high enough and that is not true
Comment by hate TWEED — August 27, 2009 @ 10:35 am
I did not have my 4 year old son tested for a gifted and talented programme,I felt he was not ready for the pressure of testing. I pictured my son telling me he was ready to leave in the middle of testing.
Comment by Ann Mckay — August 28, 2009 @ 12:05 am
Once again Anna Comintante does not practice what she preaches. There are a few available spots in older grades at my sons’ school and there are children who have clearly tested into the program, but, alas, the seats are being held for siblings that *may* choose to take the test in the future. Upwards of 10 spots going empty for those once-and-future siblings. We only have one functioning G&T program in our district, where are your options. Oh, that’s right, there are none. (I have two children and am from a big family myself, I get the sibling clause, but this seems a bit much).
The truth of the matter is: if you do not take the test at 4, you have little chance of getting into a program … and that goes triple true in the boroughs.
Comment by Anonymous — August 28, 2009 @ 9:01 am
As far as I know, no one in the field of gifted education says that gifted children are the best students or the highest scorers on standardized achievement tests. So the fact that there isn’t a perfect correlation between children identified as gifted on the one hand, and test scores and academic performance on the other, doesn’t mean that the kids were mistakenly identified. But even if some children WERE mistakenly identified - or if they were precocious at 4, but no longer precocious at 8 - that they need something special at 4, 5, 6 & 7, when they’re precocious. And finally, why is it a good thing if precocious 4, 5 and 6 year olds don’t get the kind of education they need? Wouldn’t it make more sense to lobby for more GT spots in the later grades?
Comment by anonymous — August 29, 2009 @ 1:37 am
I think the DOE’s original stated goal of universal Pre-K G&T testing was to bring more minority children into the programs–which didn’t work. I strongly feel that if the DOE is to continue testing all children at age 4, they need to retest later for admission to G&T programs in the upper grades. Enrichment for gifted students simply isn’t happening at the local school level, and many high achievers are languishing in classrooms, bored out of their minds, as the teachers focus on bringing struggling children to grade level.
Comment by district 13 parent — August 29, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Learning through play. Learning through play. Learning through play. That should still be the goal of pre-kindergarten and a great deal of kindergarten. Stop testing these littlest folks. Testing at this age is the same as child abuse. Our entire system is out of control.
Comment by Anonymous — August 31, 2009 @ 9:14 am
I agree that testing kids at 4 or 5 and labeling them “gifted” at that age is ridiculous, although I did it with both my kids. But that is only to take advantage of the programs in my district and not because I think my kids truly are gifted.
Comment by Anonymous — August 31, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Actually, Lily Tomlin would be probably be horrified to see a version of the title her famous one-woman, one-thousand character show used to discuss what some people think should be happening in Pre K and Kgn. There is NO ONE now at the DOE who has the Early Childhood gifts that Ellie Grieg Ukoli and her predecessor Marge McAllister had; PreK and Kgn are a shadow of their former “selves”.
Comment by Anonymous — August 31, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
And do not miss the newest issue of Zero to Three — which leads off its latest issue with a great article by Ed Zigler, the ‘father’ of Head Start, titled “Play Under Siege” — which pretty much says it all.
Comment by Anonymous — August 31, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Clearly the idea of putting 4 year olds and their parents through the stress of high stakes testing is an awful idea. The reality is that there is some kind of notion that some kids “have potential” and others “have less potential.” The notion that “potential’ can be identified at the age of 4 doesn’t pass the laugh test.
The fact of the matter is that while the ed system is trying to change from a filtering system to an educational system this is one approach to a transitional program.
Yes, it does produce metrics that can be used to judge progress of the system as a whole. No doubt from the top of the pyramid this is a useful and important function.
But the unintended consequences of thousands of families to start the educational rat race at the age of 4 is just too high a price to pay. There has to be a much less destructive stress producing way to get from here to where we all have to go.
As much as I approve of the overall changes happening in the DoE, this program demonstrates a serious lack of imagination.
Comment by Michael J — August 31, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
I have a girl and a boy. I do get the developmental differences. I do understand where parents are coming from who take issue with “once in–always in” the program, when there should be more room for kids in later years. (Though there are frequent assessments throughout the course of the g/t class. My daughter was constantly taking tests to see if she was keeping up. If she weren’t, I wouldn’t have an issue with pulling her out, btw.)
However, I do have to say that I wonder if girls do worse at older ages because by then, they’re often socialized to be cute rather than smart and may dumb down once in third grade. Let them value their smarts and get that early nurturing. Maybe, just maybe, it isn’t such a bad thing that there are lots of girls in the program.
Comment by girlpower — September 2, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
I let my 4 years old daughter took the test solely because she can have an option to a better school,given that our zone school is poorly performed. What parent does not want his or her child to get the best education right? She did get into one of the best school in our district because of the test.
Comment by anon — September 3, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
kids at this age dont know whats best for them, its the parent responsibility to give them the best education and help them keep up with the class, and to let them know the importance of education.
Comment by anon — September 3, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
While it is true that the whole system is crazy, and a shame, the reality is that the test is only pressure for the child if the parent makes it so. It is one half hour one day with one teacher. The work is similar to many preschool activities. And the test could very well be less stressful than a day at preschool because it is one on one. Honestly, while mass testing may be philosophically off the mark, it is not a tragedy or a torture for children. It is, however, a torture for the parents who wait for results, and then have to deal with lotteries after the results are in that, for the most part, render the fact that you may have lucked out with a high score completely meaningless. The collateral damage the kids get from the months long pressure their parents are under is probably much more significantly detrimental than any negative effects of the test itself. Also, plenty of really, really bright kids bomb the Olsat because they are four, and they have bad days. It’s a total crapshoot.
Comment by anothermother — September 3, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
While I agree with having some G&T classes available for the younger children at kindergarten through 2nd grade for those who really need it, there should be a further assessment of the children in these classes to figure out if they truly belong. With all the competition out there for these coveted seats in Kindergarten, I’m seeing “G&T test prep programs” being developed in preschools and off- site centers that focuses on preparing these darling little 4 yr olds to “test well” and pass the G&T tests. This isn’t high school!
As a parent of a truly gifted child who scored very high on the G&T test, I know intense advanced prepping is not needed. He constantly demonstrate critial thinking skills and inquistive characteristics. When the DOE lowered the G&T eligibility score to 90, many children are grouped into this G&T label the effect is undeserving pressure on these young children to be competitive at a very early age, put on by the parents. Research has shown that truly gifted children score very high and has differentiated interests from most children their age. Those who barely passed the eligibility will suffer from the academic pressure in a G&T class when they struggle to keep up with others. We parents have such competitive spirits; hoping to put our kids in what we think is a better environment. Is the child really happy in this environment or is it the parents that are the ones happy? Please… parents, don’t pressure your little ones. DOE should re-evaluate each student in their G&T classes regularly throughout their academic careers and offer up seats to those who truly need it!
Comment by Christiana — September 8, 2009 @ 12:50 am
I agree that testing a 4 year old is ridiculous, but I did test my daughter — not because our local school was so bad that we were seeking refuge in a G&T school, but because everyone who met her was astounded by how intellectually mature and “smart” she was, including her Pre-K teachers who INSISTED she get tested. She taught herself to read by age 4 and was already reading on a 1st grade level in Pre-K as well addition and subtraction (all self-motivated, mind you). I was hesitant to test a child so young, but felt obligated to jump through the ridiculous hoops that NYC Dept of Ed created because I wanted to do what was right for her, and afraid that if I didn’t do it at that time, our chances of getting in at a later age would be slim to none. Our appointment time for the test, unfortunately, was exactly during her regular nap time, so she did fabulous on the BSRA, scoring near perfect, and not so well on the OLSAT, which surprised me because she had done very well on the practice tests I got from the district. She came out of the test happy, but exhausted. We had to wait until MAY for the results, and saw that she did not make the cutoff. I was speechless, but knew that it wasn’t the fact that my daughter wasn’t gifted — it was because by taking this test at 4 years old, we were “letting it all ride” on an hour window of her life, when she was completely exhausted, and was a “crap shoot” as another poster said. Every teacher at her school was at a loss for words! This year, even though her K teachers agreed that she is definitely gifted, I chose not to put her (and us) through that fiasco again. Not when the availability of seats in G&T is now so limited. It simply didn’t seem worth it, when there was little chance of getting a seat anyway. From what I hear, it’s the same curriculum, it just goes a little deeper into each subject anyway, so we chose to keep her at her current school. She was in the Enrichment Program this year, and I have offered her more advanced materials at home to keep her stimulated. In the meantime, she is happy in this school and doing extremely well — sometimes being “the big fish in the little pond” isn’t such a bad thing after all, either!
Comment by Melissa — September 9, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Our school has ONE G&T class for the entire district, the class is filled with 30 kids, and a wait list long enough to fill several dozen more seats. I think it does huge disservice to the school because it’s overcrowded even without a G&T class, and now there’s an extra class being added in each grade, and so the general population is getting squeezed of needed time, space, and ultimate education. Not to mention that kids who are on the wait list for G&T may never get a chance to make it to the G&T because there is no retesting or much of attrition due to the fact that it’s a district-wide program. Really stupid.
Comment by Anonimous — September 10, 2009 @ 12:07 pm