Growing up, we had G&T testing starting in about 2nd grade. The kids who qualified were just pulled out for enrichment learning a couple times a week.
Like others, I question the idea that 4 year olds can be identified as gifted. I also think it's unfortunate that under the current model there is not gifted enrichment in every school. Why do gifted kids need stand alone schools or stand alone classes?
I support the end to the testing and would welcome the closure of citywide G&T. G&T should be available in every school. Frankly, I think G&T should be the standard and remedial learners should get the push in, pull out resources.
I agree. 4 year-olds should not be subjected to tests where they are alone in a room with a total stranger and told to solve puzzles. Instead, the resources that are put into testing should go into providing a safe, high-quality education to everyone.
The numbers don't lie--this test doesn't measure what it's supposed to measure. It measures something, but...
Our district has 36.5K students, is about 9% white and another 8% asian (though these are mainly poor Bangladeshi immigrants).
D2 has 60K students, is 25% white and another 22% asian.
D26 in Queens, probably the city's second best-performing district, has 31K students, just under 50% asian, and another 17% white.
Last year, my son was one of 5 or fewer kids in our district to score a 99 on the test. They don't report actual numbers under 5 for privacy reasons, so it's totally possible he was one of 3, or one of 2, or even the only one.
D2 had 128 kids who scored a 99
D26 had 32
So even controlling for population, kids in D2 are SEVENTEEN TIMES SMARTER than kids in my district?? Yeah, okay...
Granted, probably more manhattan kids took the test, but not 17x more--the testing center was crowded when we went there.
The test is very obviously a flawed mess.
We are white and highly-educated, by the way. This test measures level of privilege and exposure to educational resources in early childhood. Some people think that means prepping, and for some, it does. We didn't prep, but my kid still grew up around educated people, surrounded by books and museums and whatever. That's something, but it isn't "giftedness".
^Here is another statistical analysis of test results by district, from 2017. According to this, 20% of D2 kids scored over 97 and another 20% scored over 90, so FORTY PERCENT were G&T eligible.
In D11 it was 2.4% that scored a 97 and another 7% over 90, so just under 10% were G&T eligible.
In D7 (the south bronx) it was barely anyone.
It's a statistical impossibility that D2 kids are 4x more gifted than D11 kids, sorry.
The DOE is philosophically opposed to academic excellence. Somehow being talented in basketball is a good thing and no one would suggest that a child should only practice free shots until everyone else catches up. Being good in math or reading though is to be despised. I'm not married to the test, but the replacement will be a few hours of "enrichment", maybe even online. I'm looking for ways out.
For those opposed to the test in general I understand your point and have seen the test prep centers etc. But that exists in the local schools are not great. The nyc is too big and for whatever reason the budget doesn't exist to adequately to support the range of students.
When I was in elementary school in a smaller city the gifted program worked by having an iq test in 2nd grade , and then 1x week going to a different school for the day.
I very much believe there should be programming for advanced students. When I was young in NYC they had what they called "TAG" classes in the local schools. I feel like a lot of parents would object to this today, since there has been a ratcheting-up of standards and expectations, and there's a lot of anxiety around kids not succeeding, etc.
I love my kid's G&T program and it serves him very well. I don't think it would be the end of the world, though, if it wasn't *as* intense and was more open to children of a wider range of abilities. After all, that's the world.
I think the desire to insulate our kids in only the tippy-top, best-of-the-best environments is a problem. Schools have to be good and safe, they don't have to be rarefied havens for only the kids who can sit still at age 4 and complete rote tasks.
My kid had a good day at the testing center, and we were lucky. Just this morning, though, he had a massive meltdown over whether he should be expected to button his own shirt... :)
ETA for me, the real benefit of G&T is that they know how to deal with the weirder aspects of really smart kids. My ds is not on the spectrum or anything like that, but there are definitely other issues when their minds jump so far ahead of their emotional development.
I think this is great news, and always thought it was ridiculous to test 4 year olds for "giftedness" in the first place. My 4 year old is bright and was reading at 4 but does that mean she is somehow gifted and deserves her own school building? My decision was to move out of my crappy school district and give up space, vacations, etc in order to move to neighborhood with a great zoned school. If a school thinks there are gifted kids by 1st or 2nd grade then by all means have some sort of evaluation, and then put them in special classes or offer them additional enrichment classes, which is the way it was in my inner city school growing up, but this mad rush to test 4 year old was a waste of time and resources and really just an excuse to bring/keep wealthy white people in public schools in gentrified neighborhoods.
@SuperMom I live in a decidedly un-gentrified (not even gentrifying) neighborhood, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Sending my ds to G&T meant that I didn't move--I'll continue paying my mortgage here and keeping up the family membership at the local Y, and going to the Parks rec center, and shopping at local businesses.
Since my area now has double-digit unemployment and a very high rate of rent defaults, I think that's a good thing.
And as there are more people like me, maybe the balance at the local schools will improve.
I think the city should do everything possible to make every neighborhood economically diverse. That's the only way there will be a balanced enough population to improve the schools. Build more affordable housing in wealthy areas and do whatever it takes to keep educated MC and UMC folks from fleeing low-income areas "because of the schools".
I get what you're saying in theory, but read my response below. Out of 65,000 thousand, only 2500 are getting seats. You can't possibly think those are the only smart enough/gifted enough to be deserving of a seat. The inherent unfairness is too much for all those kids that are left behind while such a tiny percentage of students are even getting this better education. I really don't think that's where resources need to go when only a few kids benefit.
I have a different perspective. My older child was reading at 3.5 yo and benefited from being in G&T program from K. Children who are decoding at a young age have specific needs that generally go unaddressed in a regular school classroom, because the teachers focus on those who aren't reading yet, not the children who can coast through on decoding and memorization.
You may think it is ridiculous to test four years old, but you then made the decision to move to enroll your child in what you call a "great zoned school". Not everyone has the ability to move or wants to move. I know several parents of smart kids who did not think the education their child was receiving in a "great zoned school" was enough.
I grew up in a city, too. I was a bored kid in a school system that had no redress for accelerated students. As a result, I probably value the G&T program more than most, because I know what it's like not to have it.
Well if you listen to the numbers that DeBlasio just quoted in his conference, there are 65,000 kindergarten students, of which 15,000 took the test, of which 2500 received a seat. That leaves so many kids out who could have done well had they had the opportunity, time, resources, etc to prepare for and take the test. I don't see how anyone can justify such a small number of kids having access to those extra resources. My decision to move is bc I refuse to be a part of a system that is closed off to so many. Why would I complain about the unfairness of the G&T program and then put my child in it? Of course not everyone can move, but we gave up alot to move (basically all of our discretionary spending) to squeeze into a smaller apartment bc education is extremely important to us, but not to the point to support such a broken system that leaves out so many by participating in G&T.
@SuperMom Yup. For those kids who score for G&T, its essentially a lottery for the limited slots. Its unfair because its scarce, and that scarcity is created by the City.
As a parent with children in a G&T program, I am familiar with the misinformation about G&T programs. First, these kids aren't getting extra resources. The per pupil allotment for students in G&T programs is low. Second, I have experienced first hand the DOE's institutionalized racism. The DOE does not promote G&T in lower income/POC neighborhoods. The DOE fails to provide all children access to the same opportunities. The small numbers of kids who test in these neighborhoods is a reflection of the DOE's discrimination against these kids. Third, I knew several people who moved to a "great zoned school"and were taken advantage of by landlords who charge exorbitant amounts for tenement-style apartments, because they know the parents' desperation. You should not have to give up all your discretionary income to send your child to a public school. Fourth, everyone makes the choice that is right for their family and their child. Many times these choices are based on what the parents experienced as children and are therefore very personal. There isn't one right choice.
And speaking of choices, all those anti screen/G&T folks in the DOE and the CEC councils made the choice to send their precious children to G&T or screen MS and HS.
Also, many in the anti-screen crowd are proponents of progressive education. IME most parents across the spectrum want a traditional education for their children.
I am in favor of the G&T programs because of the accelerated curriculum. My concern is that the bar is too low in Gen Ed. Even in a so called "great zoned school", what the kids get is not so impressive compared to international standards, especially in math and science. To me, it would make sense to get rid of the "gifted" designation and try to offer an accelerated curriculum in all elementary schools. Many students may surprise us with what they can achieve when we hold them to higher standards.
I just saw this!
DeBlasio burning everything to the ground on his way out
so is this for elementary, middle school and high school?
I think elementary. They haven't decided what to do with the high schools yet I think?
@Anonymous would this be for schools like hunter or g and t programs within elementarys chools?
@anonymous I think just G&T for elementary. I’m wondering if they are doing away with the program or just using a different admission process.
Growing up, we had G&T testing starting in about 2nd grade. The kids who qualified were just pulled out for enrichment learning a couple times a week.
Like others, I question the idea that 4 year olds can be identified as gifted. I also think it's unfortunate that under the current model there is not gifted enrichment in every school. Why do gifted kids need stand alone schools or stand alone classes?
I support the end to the testing and would welcome the closure of citywide G&T. G&T should be available in every school. Frankly, I think G&T should be the standard and remedial learners should get the push in, pull out resources.
I think there might be schools that are specifically for remedial learners. I think DF teaches at one. Does anyone know if classes like this exist?
I agree. 4 year-olds should not be subjected to tests where they are alone in a room with a total stranger and told to solve puzzles. Instead, the resources that are put into testing should go into providing a safe, high-quality education to everyone.
It's about time. That test was ridiculous.
Seriously.
The numbers don't lie--this test doesn't measure what it's supposed to measure. It measures something, but...
Our district has 36.5K students, is about 9% white and another 8% asian (though these are mainly poor Bangladeshi immigrants).
D2 has 60K students, is 25% white and another 22% asian.
D26 in Queens, probably the city's second best-performing district, has 31K students, just under 50% asian, and another 17% white.
Last year, my son was one of 5 or fewer kids in our district to score a 99 on the test. They don't report actual numbers under 5 for privacy reasons, so it's totally possible he was one of 3, or one of 2, or even the only one.
D2 had 128 kids who scored a 99
D26 had 32
So even controlling for population, kids in D2 are SEVENTEEN TIMES SMARTER than kids in my district?? Yeah, okay...
Granted, probably more manhattan kids took the test, but not 17x more--the testing center was crowded when we went there.
The test is very obviously a flawed mess.
We are white and highly-educated, by the way. This test measures level of privilege and exposure to educational resources in early childhood. Some people think that means prepping, and for some, it does. We didn't prep, but my kid still grew up around educated people, surrounded by books and museums and whatever. That's something, but it isn't "giftedness".
^Here is another statistical analysis of test results by district, from 2017. According to this, 20% of D2 kids scored over 97 and another 20% scored over 90, so FORTY PERCENT were G&T eligible.
In D11 it was 2.4% that scored a 97 and another 7% over 90, so just under 10% were G&T eligible.
In D7 (the south bronx) it was barely anyone.
It's a statistical impossibility that D2 kids are 4x more gifted than D11 kids, sorry.
The DOE is philosophically opposed to academic excellence. Somehow being talented in basketball is a good thing and no one would suggest that a child should only practice free shots until everyone else catches up. Being good in math or reading though is to be despised. I'm not married to the test, but the replacement will be a few hours of "enrichment", maybe even online. I'm looking for ways out.
For those opposed to the test in general I understand your point and have seen the test prep centers etc. But that exists in the local schools are not great. The nyc is too big and for whatever reason the budget doesn't exist to adequately to support the range of students.
When I was in elementary school in a smaller city the gifted program worked by having an iq test in 2nd grade , and then 1x week going to a different school for the day.
I very much believe there should be programming for advanced students. When I was young in NYC they had what they called "TAG" classes in the local schools. I feel like a lot of parents would object to this today, since there has been a ratcheting-up of standards and expectations, and there's a lot of anxiety around kids not succeeding, etc.
I love my kid's G&T program and it serves him very well. I don't think it would be the end of the world, though, if it wasn't *as* intense and was more open to children of a wider range of abilities. After all, that's the world.
I think the desire to insulate our kids in only the tippy-top, best-of-the-best environments is a problem. Schools have to be good and safe, they don't have to be rarefied havens for only the kids who can sit still at age 4 and complete rote tasks.
My kid had a good day at the testing center, and we were lucky. Just this morning, though, he had a massive meltdown over whether he should be expected to button his own shirt... :)
ETA for me, the real benefit of G&T is that they know how to deal with the weirder aspects of really smart kids. My ds is not on the spectrum or anything like that, but there are definitely other issues when their minds jump so far ahead of their emotional development.
I think this is great news, and always thought it was ridiculous to test 4 year olds for "giftedness" in the first place. My 4 year old is bright and was reading at 4 but does that mean she is somehow gifted and deserves her own school building? My decision was to move out of my crappy school district and give up space, vacations, etc in order to move to neighborhood with a great zoned school. If a school thinks there are gifted kids by 1st or 2nd grade then by all means have some sort of evaluation, and then put them in special classes or offer them additional enrichment classes, which is the way it was in my inner city school growing up, but this mad rush to test 4 year old was a waste of time and resources and really just an excuse to bring/keep wealthy white people in public schools in gentrified neighborhoods.
I meant my now 6 year old.
@SuperMom I live in a decidedly un-gentrified (not even gentrifying) neighborhood, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Sending my ds to G&T meant that I didn't move--I'll continue paying my mortgage here and keeping up the family membership at the local Y, and going to the Parks rec center, and shopping at local businesses.
Since my area now has double-digit unemployment and a very high rate of rent defaults, I think that's a good thing.
And as there are more people like me, maybe the balance at the local schools will improve.
I think the city should do everything possible to make every neighborhood economically diverse. That's the only way there will be a balanced enough population to improve the schools. Build more affordable housing in wealthy areas and do whatever it takes to keep educated MC and UMC folks from fleeing low-income areas "because of the schools".
I get what you're saying in theory, but read my response below. Out of 65,000 thousand, only 2500 are getting seats. You can't possibly think those are the only smart enough/gifted enough to be deserving of a seat. The inherent unfairness is too much for all those kids that are left behind while such a tiny percentage of students are even getting this better education. I really don't think that's where resources need to go when only a few kids benefit.
I have a different perspective. My older child was reading at 3.5 yo and benefited from being in G&T program from K. Children who are decoding at a young age have specific needs that generally go unaddressed in a regular school classroom, because the teachers focus on those who aren't reading yet, not the children who can coast through on decoding and memorization.
You may think it is ridiculous to test four years old, but you then made the decision to move to enroll your child in what you call a "great zoned school". Not everyone has the ability to move or wants to move. I know several parents of smart kids who did not think the education their child was receiving in a "great zoned school" was enough.
I grew up in a city, too. I was a bored kid in a school system that had no redress for accelerated students. As a result, I probably value the G&T program more than most, because I know what it's like not to have it.
Well if you listen to the numbers that DeBlasio just quoted in his conference, there are 65,000 kindergarten students, of which 15,000 took the test, of which 2500 received a seat. That leaves so many kids out who could have done well had they had the opportunity, time, resources, etc to prepare for and take the test. I don't see how anyone can justify such a small number of kids having access to those extra resources. My decision to move is bc I refuse to be a part of a system that is closed off to so many. Why would I complain about the unfairness of the G&T program and then put my child in it? Of course not everyone can move, but we gave up alot to move (basically all of our discretionary spending) to squeeze into a smaller apartment bc education is extremely important to us, but not to the point to support such a broken system that leaves out so many by participating in G&T.
@SuperMom Yup. For those kids who score for G&T, its essentially a lottery for the limited slots. Its unfair because its scarce, and that scarcity is created by the City.
@SuperMom What are those "extra resources" that you speak of that G&T children are allegedly getting?
As a parent with children in a G&T program, I am familiar with the misinformation about G&T programs. First, these kids aren't getting extra resources. The per pupil allotment for students in G&T programs is low. Second, I have experienced first hand the DOE's institutionalized racism. The DOE does not promote G&T in lower income/POC neighborhoods. The DOE fails to provide all children access to the same opportunities. The small numbers of kids who test in these neighborhoods is a reflection of the DOE's discrimination against these kids. Third, I knew several people who moved to a "great zoned school"and were taken advantage of by landlords who charge exorbitant amounts for tenement-style apartments, because they know the parents' desperation. You should not have to give up all your discretionary income to send your child to a public school. Fourth, everyone makes the choice that is right for their family and their child. Many times these choices are based on what the parents experienced as children and are therefore very personal. There isn't one right choice.
And speaking of choices, all those anti screen/G&T folks in the DOE and the CEC councils made the choice to send their precious children to G&T or screen MS and HS.
@Anonymous EXACTLY! The hypocrisy is astounding.
Also, many in the anti-screen crowd are proponents of progressive education. IME most parents across the spectrum want a traditional education for their children.
I am in favor of the G&T programs because of the accelerated curriculum. My concern is that the bar is too low in Gen Ed. Even in a so called "great zoned school", what the kids get is not so impressive compared to international standards, especially in math and science. To me, it would make sense to get rid of the "gifted" designation and try to offer an accelerated curriculum in all elementary schools. Many students may surprise us with what they can achieve when we hold them to higher standards.