After days of scrambling and searching for about 60 missing gifted and talented program tests for students at PS 9 in Manhattan, Department of Education spokesman Andy Jacob said yesterday that the test company, Pearson, found the mis-marked box -- but that the tests everyone thought were there, weren't.

"We're going to retest the students whose tests we can't locate," Jacob said after a letter went out to PS 9 families explaining the process. Do-overs will begin this weekend at the DOE headquarters, Tweed Courthouse, and continue through Thursday at PS 9. Department of Education officials will hand-score the tests and have promised that families "will receive score reports by Tuesday, May 26" -- with applications due Friday, the 29th. Jacob also said that "turning in their applications later won't affect their chances of being placed in a particular program."

"There's nothing we can do to fully make up for the inconvenience and frustration of this situation for the affected families," said Jacob. "The best thing we can do is retest the students and get them their results as quickly as possible."

The students will not repeat the full OLSAT exam that was offered in the fall, but will instead take a "breach form of OLSAT," according to the DOE's letter to parents, which is the "alternate form used in all retesting situations."

Parents at PS 9 wonder why their kids have to retest at all. Natalie Redmond, whose daughter's test was lost, asks why last year's test scores can't be used in lieu of a new test. Redmond points out that DOE will use old tests to place some children in G&T programs-- if it's "good enough for kids in the outer boroughs," Redmond asks, why isn't the option of using last year's scores open to PS 9 parents as well?

Whether the missing-tests kids will gain a competitive edge by repeating a familiar test hasn't been broached. It seems clear, though, that the DOE could mandate practices to prevent this kind of crisis: Why aren't schools required to photocopy test papers before they're sent? Seems as simple as a fail-safe can be.