Parent advocate Leonie Haimson has written an urgent plea to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chancellor Richard Carranza. They acknowledge that the test for the “gifted and talented” programs are flawed, they know they need to be replaced, they know that it is wrong to test children as young as 4, but they are giving the test anyway. Haimson says, STOP NOW!
Haimson writes:
Last week, Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Carranza announced that they will administer the controversial and problematic test for admissions to “gifted and talented” classes this spring, for perhaps a final year. Then:
“We will spend the next year engaging communities around what kind of programming they would like to see that is more inclusive, enriching, and truly supports the needs of academically advanced and diversely talented students at a more appropriate age… We will also engage communities around how best to integrate enriched learning opportunities to more students, so that every student – regardless of a label or a class that they are in – can access rigorous learning that is tailored to their needs and fosters their creativity, passion, and strengths.”
Yet the question arises as to why they will continue to give these exams to children as young as four years old at all. They are exams that few respected researchers believe are either valid or reliable. Why not end the practice now, especially given the risks and considerable cost of administering this test during a pandemic?
We have posted many critiques of New York City’s gifted program over the years on our NYC Public School Parents blog, including this one by esteemed education leader Debbie Meier in 2007, when Chancellor Joel Klein first instituted a standardized, high-stakes testing process for admissions to these classes in the supposed name of “equity.”
As Meier wrote, “They are using two instruments we know for a fact provide racially biased results–it’s the data that the canards about racial inferiority are based on and comes with a history of bias. Both class and race. Furthermore, we know that psychometricians have unanimously warned us for years about the lack of reliability of standardized tests for children under 7.”
The admissions outcome is clearly racially- and economically-biased, as nearly half of all students who take the test in the wealthiest part of Manhattan, District 2, score as “gifted” (meaning at 90th percentile) while very few score that high in the poorer neighborhoods of Brooklyn or the Bronx. Some parents pay up to $400 an hour for their four-year-old children to take test prep classes.
About 29,000 children took the gifted test last year, and about 3,600 got offers for seats in gifted classes. Currently, according to the New York Post, Asian students account for 43% of these students, followed by white students at 36%, Hispanic students 8%, and Black students 6%.
To show how ridiculous this test is, Haimson cites a study showing that most of the children who score at the top on the exam are not at the top a year later.
The only beneficiary of this test is Pearson, which turns a profit.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
All children are gifted and talented.
LikeLike
I hate bring this up, but capitalism is what our system is about. Anything that furthers money-making for investors is good; anything else is bad–probably (shudder) socialism, ugh.
“Schools will be fracked,
will be squeezed until
profits ooze out,
but can the imaginations
of childhood be wrung dry
for corporate greed?”
“No Child Race to the Top”
LikeLike
Jack A potential new term bubbling up out there: Democratic Economics. CBK
LikeLike
Jack Follow-up link:
https://functionalmacroeconomics.com/2021/01/21/editors-introduction-to-cwl-15-table-of-contents/
Don’t be put off by the collar . . . B. Lonergan is a first rate philosopher. CBK
LikeLike
The “gifted” program in NYC is a token program for parents that have neurotic impulse to show that their child is somehow superior and “special.” Once again, the results merely reflect whose parents have money and blind ambition and those that are poor. It only helps Pearson and the child psychologists that will have to deal with the children that were recklessly driven at such a young age.
LikeLike
Those tests make a FEW people RICH.
Kids are just another source of income for the FEW.
LikeLike
Good morning Diane and everyone.
Haimson asks, “Yet the question arises as to why they will continue to give these exams to children as young as four years old at all.”
Answer #1 : A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Answer #2: Money is one of the roots of evil.
LikeLike
Little Einsteins Lost
We know he is gifted
And talented too
At four, he has drifted
And just fallen through
The cracks in the system
Let Einsteins degrade
Demote them and diss them
Till talent will fade
LikeLike
Gifted and Talented in the Womb
She’s gifted, we can tell
From amniotic test
She rang the “gifted” bell
She really is the Best
LikeLike
Gifted and Talented Test prep
LikeLike
You can just imagine Tiger moms drilling their four year olds on this sort of stuff.
LikeLike
The irony of it all is that in its pursuit of geniuses, America has become a nation of idiots.
LikeLike
No sooner had I spoken
Than idiot appeared
Who really is a token
For all that we have feared
LikeLike
No. Abolish them, (Along with G&T programs.)
LikeLike
I hope that if the G&T program is abolished the students will have access to an appropriate curriculum. I saw that the new science advisor, Eric Lander, was a graduate of Stuyvesant High School and he won the Westinghouse Science Talent Search with his paper on quasiperfect numbers. I am sure that having access to a challenging curriculum kept Dr. Lander engaged in school. I hope others will be given the same opportunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stuy is high school. Do you have any evidence that Eric Lander attended a g&t Kindergarten and that’s why he is so accomplished? Because his K-5 education was so superior?
And if it turns out that Eric Lander did not attend a special gifted program starting in Kindergarten, does that make you agree with the people who believe those programs are silly?
LikeLike
Indeed I can believe that Eric did not attend a special education program and as you cited below, luckily ran into a special teacher. How much more pleasant would his time have been if lots of his classmates had been accepting of someone who was interested in learning.
I agree that K seems way too early, but junior high seems reasonable, especially in mathematics. ELA assignments are generally open ended enough to allow students to do exceptional creative work. That opportunity is generally not available in mathematics courses.
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist,
In NYC, g&t is something that is primarily about identifying supposedly “gifted” 4 year olds and isolating them in separate classrooms for all of elementary school where their only classmates are other students who were also identified at age 4 or 5 as being “gifted”. The idea is that if they were in an elementary school classroom that had a range of students and included students who were not certified “gifted” at age 4, they would be severely harmed and perhaps never be allowed to develop their supposed “giftedness” to the proper degree.
That’s why it is pretty silly.
Your comment about junior high seems like what most good public school systems do where there is often an “honors” or accelerated math class in 7th or 8th grade middle schools. In NYC, even middle schools that admit kids by lottery often offer 8th graders a Regents algebra or science class that is typically for 9th graders.
LikeLike
It is entirely possible to provide an appropriate curriculum to every student in an integrated setting, provided there are small class sizes. We teachers have the tools. There is no need to give segregation more chances to expand. There is no need to allow a test-based caste system to rule our society. I want my so-called gifted and talented students in the same class as my English learners, my students with special needs, and my students living with food insecurity and home instability. They learn with one another and they learn from one another. Education is not an individualistic pursuit, and everyone in our country of vast wealth inequality is suffering greatly from those who have made it so by tacitly supporting different forms of white flight, allowing test scores to bar entry into privileged society. Social Darwinism should have no place in education.
LikeLike
LCT,
I do think it very possible for a skilled teacher to provide an appropriate curriculum to every student in an integrated setting in ELA because the structure of those classes is very open ended. I think it far more difficult in mathematics because of the way that mathematics courses are structured.
LikeLike
I am curious to know if folks here believe that the test prep classes mentioned in the post could possibly have an impact on standardized test scores of students who take the class. I take it that the orthodox opinion here is that public school teachers have virtually no impact on standardized test scores of their students, so it seems unlikely that untrained tutors could do what trained and certified teachers can not.
LikeLike
Are you saying that where you come from, no student ever does any prep for the SAT or ACT? Have you known any students who were juniors in high school at any point during the last 10 years? I suggest you ask their parents if they just went in and took the test without any prep?
You just equated “test prep” with teaching. It is true that some charter schools that devote themselves to test prep over teaching have students who do well on state tests but are often flunked over and over again because those teachers who know only how to “test prep” with skill don’t actually know much about real teaching.
Of course test prep impacts scores. I was out of college for a while when I took a test prep class for the GRE standardized test and it made a huge difference. But the idea that I could have skipped my 4 years of college and just taken a GRE test prep class to prove I was worthy of grad school is rather silly, isn’t it? Not saying it wouldn’t be much less expensive, however!
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I may be mistaken about the orthodox view here. Do you think that over the course of a school year classroom teachers have a significant impact on how their students perform on standardized tests?
Two of my children attended four year universities. Test prep for the SAT for the older one was reading a test prep book in the back of a car during family vacation. The other took the ACT with no explicit prep.
I think that in general there is a selection bias. Students who do surprisingly poorly taking the exam will sign up for test prep classes in order to improve their score. Students who do surprisingly well taking the exam will not sign up. It is likely that a student who did surprisingly poorly on the exam would have done better taking the exam a second time whether or not they had taken the any test prep class.
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist,
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make.
Are you saying that you believe whichever of your two children did better on the SAT or ACT had better teachers, and the one who did worse had worse teachers?
Over the course of a school year classroom teachers can have a significant impact on what their students’ learn in the classroom. They can also have a minimal impact because a variety of things are going on. And a classroom teacher can have a significant impact on a student’s learning over the next 5 years because of a connection they made with the student that has nothing to do with performing well on a standardized test.
How a student performs on a standardized test depends on many factors. A classroom teacher can play a very important role in how a young person develops as a student. But that can range from motivating a student to making a student feel constantly stressed and anxious. And I’ve come to learn that sometimes a teacher who can be amazing for some students can also have a negative effect on others. But that has nothing to do with standardized test performance.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I am pointing out that 1) when using changes in student tests scores to evaluate teaching is discussed, the orthodox opinion here is that teachers have little or no influence on changes in student test scores but when 2) tutoring for standardized test scores like SAT or admission to G&T are discussed, the orthodox opinion here is that the tutors have a large impact on student test scores. It seems to me that positions 1 and 2 are incompatible with each other.
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist:
I still don’t understand why you are conflating a one on one tutor for a standardized test with a classroom teacher.
Maybe you should take it up with parents who pay $40,000/year for the best private education money can buy who often also hire expensive one on one tutors for subject matter and standardized tests.
Extensive one on one tutoring benefits most students who struggle in any subject or on a standardized test. That’s why small class sizes are better. But even the best teacher or tutor will have limited impact on students when other outside issues may affect the student a lot more.
A mediocre teacher will likely be able to teach more material to a class of highly motivated learners than a fantastic teacher can teach to a class of disruptive students or those with learning issues or outside stressors.
As I already said, a good teacher can have great influence on a student and a terrible teacher can have great influence on a student. The very same teacher can have a great influence on one student and no influence or a negative influence on another student. But none of that as anything to do with performance on a standardized test.
Which is why I assume you don’t judge your own two children’s high school teachers based on their SAT/ACT performance and decide that your kid with the higher scores had better teachers. Or maybe you do? But what if their friend had a lower SAT but had the same teacher??!! Oh dear! It’s so confusing, isn’t it?
LikeLike
You know a lot of folks who helped develop the testing systems and such, never actually had to take them, themselves. Growing up in Michigan and Ohio, I never took an SAT or other such test to get into college. Every graduate of all Ohio’s certified public schools was automatically eligible for entrance to any state university or college. Something like that prevailed in most states, I believe. Isn’t it amazing that those who grew up and prospered under that system then imposed this restrictive, punishing system on the generations that followed.
“We who sang songs,
read poems, wrote essays,
leave them the brain bending,
standardized,
multiple guess.”
from “No Child Race to the Top”
LikeLike
Jack,
Excellent point. Growing up in Houston, I never took standardized tests until I applied fir college and took the SAT. Once.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Let me give it another try. Either teachers have a significant impact on students standardized test scores or they do not. If they do, using changes in standardized test scores is a reasonable way to evaluate teachers effectiveness. If they do not, spending money on test prep tutoring for G&T, SAT or even GRE exams is a giant waste of money. Which do you think is right?
I think it would be helpful if others, including Dr. Ravitch, would contribute to this discussion.
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist writes: “Let me give it another try. Either teachers have a significant impact on students standardized test scores or they do not.”
Whereas either/or, do or do not questions are appropriate in some cases, in this case, they are not. Why? Because the possible answers to this YES/NO, DOES/DOES NOT kind of question cannot possibly cover all of the significant complexities of persons, places, and particular situations that play into even accessible data and so inform whatever significance we want to draw from it, e.g., the specific history of events that flows into those situations, or the nuances of the relationship between students, teachers, and parents, <–the later in further complex home situations, or particular psychological states at test-time . . . all have significant influence on a students’ test scores on any one day.
In other words, and as a general theorem, the complexity of any data field can itself be significant. Whatever data we can legitimately draw from situations are both diverse and mutually dependent. To abstract one relationship (e.g., between teachers and test scores) from the context and field of also-significant data to make such a singular cause-to-effect judgment is flawed from the get-go and cannot help but be so.
In situations where many actions are pending that are dependent on the answer to a flawed question, the flaw becomes comprehensive . . . that is, to pursue such an answer can only serve a need for an answer . . . ANY answer . . . regardless if the question itself is flawed by suffering from gross abstraction and over-simplification, and so cannot help but generate further flawed answers and effects.
If that’s the case in this situation, then, the rest of your note (below) is moot.
The further issue is that, though statistical method is extremely helpful, it tends to eliminate anomalies . . . as statistically insignificant. Whereas with education, and particularly where parents are involved, and they almost always are so-involved, this particular student can BE a statistical anomaly. So as a matter of defining significance itself, there is a potential built-in conflict between statistical method and, on the other hand, historical, developmental, and dialectical methods; the later of which are commonly and wrongly overlooked in a field (education) that tacitly depends on all of them. Presently, the above problem also influences fields associated with economics. CBK
The rest of your note: “Further, they do, using changes in standardized test scores is a reasonable way to evaluate teachers effectiveness. If they do not, spending money on test prep tutoring for G&T, SAT or even GRE exams is a giant waste of money. Which do you think is right? I think it would be helpful if others, including Dr. Ravitch, would contribute to this discussion.“
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist writes: “Let me give it another try. Either teachers have a significant impact on students standardized test scores or they do not.”
Whereas either/or, do or do not questions are appropriate in some cases, in this case, they are not. Why? Because the possible answers to this YES/NO, DOES/DOES NOT kind of question cannot possibly cover all of the significant complexities of persons, places, and particular situations that play into even accessible data and so inform whatever significance we want to draw from it, e.g., the specific history of events that flows into those situations, or the nuances of the relationship between students, teachers, and parents, <–the later in further complex home situations, or particular psychological states at test-time . . . all have significant influence on a students’ test scores on any one day.
In other words, and as a general theorem, the complexity of any data field can itself be significant. Whatever data we can legitimately draw from situations are both diverse and mutually dependent. To abstract one relationship (e.g., between teachers and test scores) from the context and field of also-significant data to make such a singular cause-to-effect judgment is flawed from the get-go and cannot help but be so.
In situations where many actions are pending that are dependent on the answer to a flawed question, the flaw becomes comprehensive . . . that is, to pursue such an answer can only serve a need for an answer . . . ANY answer . . . regardless if the question itself is flawed by suffering from gross abstraction and over-simplification, and so cannot help but generate further flawed answers and effects.
If that’s the case in this situation, then, the rest of your note (below) is moot.
The further issue is that, though statistical method is extremely helpful, it tends to eliminate anomalies . . . as statistically insignificant. Whereas with education, and particularly where parents are involved, and they almost always are so-involved, this particular student can BE a statistical anomaly. So as a matter of defining significance itself, there is a potential built-in conflict between statistical method and, on the other hand, historical, developmental, and dialectical methods; the later of which are commonly and wrongly overlooked in a field (education) that tacitly depends on all of them. Presently, the above problem also influences fields associated with economics. CBK
The rest of your note: “Further, they do, using changes in standardized test scores is a reasonable way to evaluate teachers effectiveness. If they do not, spending money on test prep tutoring for G&T, SAT or even GRE exams is a giant waste of money. Which do you think is right? I think it would be helpful if others, including Dr. Ravitch, would contribute to this discussion.“
LikeLike
CBK,
Double posts happen. Nothing to apologize for.
If your point is that teachers and tutors often, but not always, have a significant impact on student standardized test scores that seems to me to be a consistent position. If your point is that teachers and tutors often, but not always, have no significant impact on student standardized test scores that also seems to me to be a consistent position.
It is a position that claims tutors often, but not always, have a significant impact on student standardized test scores and teachers often, but not always, have no significant impact on student standardized test scores that I think is an inconsistent position to hold. I also think this is the orthodox opinion for this blog.
LikeLike
I suggest you read Jay Greene on the subject of test scores. He is chair of the Department of Educational Reform at the University of Arkansas. He shows that test scores have no 8mpact on success in life. I cite his research in my book “Slaying Goliath.”
LikeLike
Teachingeconomists My point is that I don’t how such data can be abstracted cleanly, so to speak, from the complexities of the overall situations, the details of which also significantly influence the relationship between teachers and student test scores. It’s a little like pressing Cinderella’s shoe onto her sisters’ feet. CBK
LikeLike
@teachingeconomist You have a relevant point. However, realize that there is a G&T narrative. G&T detractors refuse to hear anything that does not support their narrative. @NYC public school parent’s responses to you demonstrate that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
**TE, NYC, Diane, et al: I apologize . . . for inadvertently posting the same note twice to TE regarding questioning and significance. Sheesh. CBK
LikeLike
While I agree with Leonie’s sentiments that elementary school g&t exams are absurd, as a public school parent, I want to remind you of what deBlasio and Carranza did do during the pandemic which has far, far more impact.
de Blasio and Carranza made ALL admissions to middle schools based on lottery.
The impact of that move is 40,000x more impactful than whether g&t tests for K-2nd graders is abolished this year or next.
I’m not kidding — it is 40,000x more impactful.
There are 80,000 5th graders applying to middle schools which are now open via lottery.
Last year some 2,000 or so of the 77,000 Kindergartens got offers to g&t programs — that 2.5% of the Kindergarten students! And only 19% of parents of 4 year olds even cared enough to have their kids tested for so-called “giftedness”.
Given that deBlasio and Carranza have made it clear they wanted a different kind of program in elementary school than the current g&t tests, this really doesn’t bother me as a parent if it is one more year.
I don’t see much upside at all to having a huge controversial fight RIGHT NOW about something that a small group of mostly privileged parents care about.
Most of the students at the specialized and very selective NYC public high schools didn’t attend special elementary schools reserved for only g&t. They attended their local elementary schools and, more commonly, chose an academically selective middle school.
Most parents don’t care very much about g&t programs that start in K, but the ones who do are very vocal. Not a fight that has to happen now, especially when admission to middle school is going to be vastly different, a much bigger change that affects ALL students, not just a tiny percentage of the 4 and 5 year olds whose parents think they need a special gifted education starting in K.
So end it next year and not this year. The big news is middle school admissions! I’m surprised that isn’t being talked about much more here since it was a much bigger and enormous change!
LikeLike
I hear you. Many families look for a more academically rigorous middle school after their kids start getting bored in K-5 GenEd. Focus needs to be on the mayoral candidates to educate them of the fact that there are many parents who want a rigorous education for their kids at all levels.
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist cited new science advisor (and overall truly smart guy!) Eric Lander, a graduate of Stuyvesant High School, and said “I am sure that having access to a challenging curriculum kept Dr. Lander engaged in school. I hope others will be given the same opportunity.”
That inspired me to find out more about Eric Lander, and I found a lovely article about 17 year old Eric Lander in the NYT’s “About New York” column written by John Corry on March 25, 1974. Lander was profiled because he won the Westinghouse Talent Search scholarship.
“I did well in elementary school, but nothing special, Eric said. He was at his home in Flatlands in Brooklyn…”
“Then in junior high school I ran into a very nice math teacher,” Eric said. “He helped me a lot. Of course, there were trials and tribulations along the way. In junior high school, a lot of kids didn’t accept you if you were interested in learning….”
“Eric’s father died a few years ago. His mother, Mrs. Rhoda G. Lander, teaches social studies at Abraham Lincoln High School, and Arthur, his brother, is a student at John Dewey High School.
“He’s an amazing kid, really,” Eric said again, speaking of Arthur. “He’s much better at languages than I am. He’s written three plays and he’s only 15. Arthur learns by himself, you know. He took three years of German on his own, and four of Spanish.”
Eric got Arthur’s bar mitzvah picture. He said that besides being so smart, Arthur was a nice kid, too.
“I think that Arthur goes to John Dewey because at other schools he was known only as Eric’s younger brother. Now he’s making a name for himself, on his own. Isn’t that great?”
I looked up Arthur Lander, who didn’t to go Stuy. He went to John Dewey High School and then on to Yale University.
Arthur D. Lander, M.D., Ph.D. is Director of the Center for Complex Biological Systems at the University of California, Irvine.
Eric Lander didn’t need a special “gifted” K-5 education to thrive at Stuyvesant. And his brother didn’t even need Stuyvesant to excel in college, either.
LikeLike
^^and their mother was a public high school social studies teacher!
LikeLike
“Some parents pay up to $400 an hour for their four-year-old children to take test prep classes. ”
That is so wrong headed.
Clearly, they should be paying the ones in charge of admissions.
LikeLike
Wow. I grew up in a rural area. There was one school. Everyone went to it. In high school we chose between college prep and a vocational program. ( We chose. No one chose for us.) I can’t imagine what school must be like for city kids.
LikeLike
First, the G&T test announcement was made several weeks ago. Kudos to Diane for covering news that really matters like the attempted coup d’etat and the transition to the Biden Administration, not a program comprising 1.5% of NYC public school students.
Second, my children are in a G&T program and tested in at 4 years old. It really wasn’t a big deal. Some kids are ready for it. The SDAG/anti-screener crowd likes to promote the stereotype that all families paid exorbitant fees for test prep. That’s just not true. There are many kids who go in unprepped. My husband prepped our kids at home using a book he bought online. It was very casual. Many families do just as we did, often getting a book secondhand from a friend or neighbor. IME There is significantly more test prep that goes on for middle school and high school admissions, than kindergarten.
Third, the pandemic has been traumatic for all families. NYC public school families do not appreciate the constant deBlasio-Carranza drama. Likewise, they do not appreciate people like Haimson, with all due respect for her past advocacy, telling them what is appropriate for their children. Most parents do not want a Deborah Meier-CPE1-type school for their children. One of my kids was an early reader and I did not think a progressive school was appropriate for him. This past year has been really tough and parents are not interested in Haimson’s self-righteous ranting about G&T. Personally, I find it infuriating.
Fourth, I know my children’s classmates well and yes, they are smart. The SDAG/anti-screener crowd promotes another stereotype that kids get into G&T programs, because they test well, not because they are actually smart. How can anyone call themselves an educator or activist who talks about kids in such a offensive and demeaning way?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really well said, Beth.
After about 15 years of constant drama and stress over the endless fights about admissions standards, I’m likely going to exit the NYC public school system in the fall.
LikeLike