Pre-school determinism

[SV2]

<p>This article describes the pressured admissions scene for schools in NYC. It makes familiar points about the fallibility and unreliability of the screening admissions tests (often IQ tests) administered to pre-schoolers and the negative consequences of their use. News to me was the reprehensible and successful marketing of expensive prep materials for these tests - for use with 4 year olds! And some parents cheated early in the game, buying copies of the WPPSI IQ test off the internet.</p>

<p>[Why</a> Kindergarten-Admission Tests Are Worthless – New York Magazine](<a href=“http://nymag.com/news/features/63427/]Why”>Why Kindergarten-Admission Tests Are Worthless -- New York Magazine - Nymag)</p>

<p>

There was a time, not that long ago, when few parents attempted to prep their 4-year-olds for kindergarten-admission exams. But then a few more began to do it, and then a few more after that, and then suddenly, normal-seeming people with normal-seeming values began doing it, too, and an arms-race mentality kicked in. Responding to parents’ anxieties and fears, some of the fancier preschools began subtly prepping their students—giving them similar exercises to do with blocks, introducing them to the concept of analogies. Expensive test-prep kits suddenly began to appear on the market. And high-end education consultancies began to bloom…[providing] tutors, advisers, and—most important—prep books for apprehensive and even merely conscientious parents.

</p>

[swimcatsmom]

<p>Makes me feel better about being a CC parent!!</p>

[moonchild]

<p>This wrong on so many levels.</p>

[DonnaL]

<p>This sounds all too familiar (I grew up in Manhattan and graduated from two different schools mentioned in the article, one from nursery school through 6th grade, and the other from 7th-12th grades), and makes me extremely happy that my son grew up in the suburbs, went to public schools, and never had to deal with any of this stuff. And so far (fingers crossed) hasn’t had his genuine creativity, and enthusiasm for learning, squeezed out of him by 14 or 15 years of those kinds of expectations and pressures.</p>

<p>

In Genius Revisited, Rena Subotnik, director of the American Psychological Association’s Center for Gifted Education Policy, undertook a similar study, with colleagues, looking at Hunter elementary-school alumni all grown up. Their mean IQs were 157. “They were lovely people,” she says, “and they were generally happy, productive, and satisfied with their lives. But there really wasn’t any wow factor in terms of stellar achievement.”

</p>

<p>I won’t comment on the first sentence of the quotation from Ms. Subotnik. The last sentence, however, is entirely true where I’m concerned!</p>

[starbright]

<p>Oh good lord. We loved our years in NYC but sure were happy we got to abandon this aspect of it when we moved away! We swore we’d never succumb to it…yet found ourselves horrified to realize we had just high-fived each other when our then 3 year old ‘aced’ her preschool interview! Sigh…</p>

<p>Although I will also add, we had friends who refused to play along with the fearmongering, and instead, confidenty sent their kids to the local public school in Manhattan. No one could believe it! It was unheard of in our circle! Yet I recently discovered that their kids are now starting college at tippy-top schools (as defined on CC). </p>

<p>Good on them! Maybe it’s just another industry (like college itself), that breeds on parental stress and fear and has no basis in reality.</p>

[jonri]

<p>I think the quote about Hunter Elementary destroys the entire premise of the article. The article says that you can’t test 4 year olds because IQ is not yet stable enough. Yet here’s a group of people who were tested at the age of 3 and 4 who still have a median IQ of 157 as adults. (Of course, back then, nobody “prepped” those 3 and 4 year olds for the tests.) </p>

<p>Moreover, I agree with the commentator on the NYMag site who said that the reason to send one of your kids to these programs–when they actually are gifted–is not to turn them into a Nobel Prize winner. It’s to try to insure that your little “genius” --personally I don’t define genius as everyone with an IQ over 140–doesn’t end up being treated as a human freak or weirdo. </p>

<p>I’d like to see the result of a study of a group of adults with a median IQ of 157 who went to regular suburban high schools without tracking and see whether they turned out to be “lovely people” who were happy and satisified with their lives. I went to such a school and had a few brilliant kids in my class and most of them ended up truly damaged by the experience. </p>

<p>What galls me personally is that it’s people who opt for affluent suburbia who protest the most about G&T testing in the City. At least in NYC, a brilliant kid from a dirt poor background has a CHANCE of being admitted to a great public G&T program. The same kid’s family couldn’t afford to live in most of the suburbs with good public schools. Some of these very special kids live in neighborhoods with really lousy neighborhood schools. G&T, with all its faults, is more of a meritocracy than getting into a school based on where your parents can afford to buy a house.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>funny
I didn’t graduate from high school- neither I nor my H has ever attended a 4-yr university- however our kids are doing great-had good educations ( well it was more of a struggle for the one who attended urban public school)</p>

<p>While initially we didn’t consider private schools- when I was told how generous the financial aid was ( by someone on my daughters evaluation team- she was in a university study for high risk children but I didn’t realize how competitive admission was), my oldest daughter attended a well known school for the " gifted" for elementary- because it looked like fun - it was also the school where scions of the internets now attend.( although perhaps they are almost in middle school?)</p>

<p>Most families though from different backgrounds than our own, were awfully friendly- however- it was pretty fun to drive up in our 1966 Ford truck ( which we still drive)- I felt like Granny Clampett.</p>

[SV2]

<p>

I think the quote about Hunter Elementary destroys the entire premise of the article. The article says that you can’t test 4 year olds because IQ is not yet stable enough. Yet here’s a group of people who were tested at the age of 3 and 4 who still have a median IQ of 157 as adults.

</p>

<p>I think it likely that Subotnik was referring to the IQs that those subjects had when tested as elementary school kids, not as adults. For one thing, my understanding is that adult IQ tests don’t go as high as 157.</p>

[mousegray]

<p>

At least in NYC, a brilliant kid from a dirt poor background has a CHANCE of being admitted to a great public G&T program. The same kid’s family couldn’t afford to live in most of the suburbs with good public schools. Some of these very special kids live in neighborhoods with really lousy neighborhood schools. G&T, with all its faults, is more of a meritocracy than getting into a school based on where your parents can afford to buy a house.

</p>

<p>This might be right in theory but it still doesn’t make for a diverse class of children representative of the city’s population. G&T programs are not about fairness for those brilliant poor kids. Back when I was touring elementary schools, I visited one school building that had 3 programs: a “regular” one that admitted anyone in the neighboring area, a top ranked G&T (score of 97/98%ile or higher on whatever IQ test they administered), and a lower ranked G&T (lower scores but still above 90th percentile). Theoretically, it was a meritocracy, but I got a really sick feeling in my stomach when I saw the actual children in the classrooms. The regular classrooms had nothing on the walls and the kids were all brown and black, the low G&T more mixed, and the top G&T classrooms were crammed with all kinds of wonderful books, toys, decorations, etc and most kids looked Caucasian. I got out of there as fast as I could. This was 2 decades ago, but it doesn’t look like much has changed.</p>

[bookworm]

<p>Very interesting article.</p>

<p>MANY years ago I use to test young children for private and gifted programs for public schools. At that time, I don’t believe there were “advisers”–professionals who basically cheated the system. However, kids were not to be given same test within a 6 month period. Parents would lie, and keep taking kids for testing until they scored the magical “130”, which meant acceptance into gifted programs. I had old versions of the Wppsi and Stanford binet and a 3rd test instrument in my office. If a child showed familiarity with one test, I’d casually switch to another. Some kids who were brilliant in verbal section were painfully slow with the performance tests. I never believed that the actual number was important, but in 10 minutes I could tell which kids were truly bright. I had several kids who got upset when the “games” were over.</p>

<p>Fortunately, in my non-competitive community, kids can shift into gifted anytime thru middle school.</p>

<p>I did know unethical psychologists who always managed to have testees score 131 or 132, but none that actually prepped a student for the test. so sad to push kids into programs where they would feel they were a slower learner than the others.</p>

[AnonyMom]

<p>Bookworm,</p>

<p>I certainly hope you weren’t eliminating kids who were “brilliant in the verbal section” but “painfully slow with the performance tests” from the public school gifted program you tested for. It is very likely that some of them were, in fact, brilliant children with learning disabilities impacting specific performance subtests. </p>

<p>As parent of a child in the 99th percentile on most verbal and some performance subtests, but below the 20th percentile on timed subtests involving cognitive processing speed or the actual task of writing, I’m here to tell you that screening such children out of GATE programs is a mistake. Mine did beautifully in a rigorous prep school program, competed well nationally in his field, and is now around a 3.9 in what is arguably the best college program in that field. </p>

<p>In some sense, my child was a “slower learner than the others” in that it took him longer to read and to write exams than his classmates. This is what accommodations are for. We did not feel at all sad, or that we were pushing him into a program where he would be a (literally, not as a euphemism for “less intelligent”) slower learner on some tasks, because to our minds, being slow vis a vis processing speed in some arenas has nothing to do with whether the child is absolutely brilliant and can do beautifully on those tasks, and whether the child should be mainstreamed in a classroom full of children who are his intellectual peers.</p>

<p>I’m not trying to hi-jack here, but if parents of younger, highly gifted LD children are reading this, I don’t want them to think it’s somehow kinder to their children to roll over and let the children be screened out of appropriate programs or schools. If your kid is motivated and able to perform well with accommodation, GATE and rigorous private school programs may well be the most appropriate setting, assuming a school that does not stigmatize LD students.</p>

<p>LD kids in my child’s school routinely left class to take tests and had their own rooms for finals. A few used assistive technologies. No one treated them as if they were stupid or didn’t belong there because this so clearly wasn’t the case. They are now attending the best colleges in the country along with their non-LD classmates. I would wager that any number of them are “painfully slow” on some of their IQ performance subtests. So what.</p>

[AnonyMom]

<p>Just re-read. Bookworm, I don’t mean to suggest that you, personally, were somehow treating LD kids unfairly or were responsible for keeping them out of your program. So sorry if my post reads that way. The point I wanted to make is that highly gifted kids who do well in GATE and private school programs can have LD’s that result in performance scores many standard deviations below the rest of the sub-test scores in the students’ profiles. I didn’t mean to make that point unfairly at your expense.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>I am glad to have an opportunity to possibly educate newbies that there are many kids who are " twice gifted".</p>

<p>Both my kids are twice gifted- as we all are I think, except some have very large contrasts between their strengths and weaknesses.</p>

<p>My oldest for example had been evaluated as having an IQ of 160+, however difficulty with computation that was below grade level kept her from an adequate score on the group administered achievement test that our school district used for placement in their “enriched” programs.</p>

<p>I use quotation marks, because while I toured a few of the school district programs- I didn’t think they were particulary enriched or flexible and didn’t think that they would be suitable for someone who wasn’t across the board gifted. ( we could have used her private testing- for submittal to the district, but I didn’t like feeling like I had to " work the system"- however- I suppose if I had thought it would have been worth it, I would have done so)</p>

<p>She was able to enroll in the private school-( suggested by a research psych at the UW) but one of my motivations behind still being involved with the school district now, is to encourage more recognition of students who have challenges within their very strong talents.</p>

<p>One of the reasons why my younger daughter chose her high school was the opportunity to take AP classes alongside some of the brightest students in the area. Unlike most of the other high schools, her school did not require students to be at grade level in all areas before they could try AP. By graduation, she was at or above grade level in all areas- having completed AP World History, Ap American Govt, AP Us History, and two AP lit courses.</p>

<p>The WAIS-iv is used for IQ in adults [I don’t know what the ceiling is](<a href=“Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children | Fourth Edition”>Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children | Fourth Edition) & while I am not an educational professional- I think testing is probably best used to help identify strengths and weaknesses in young people , so curriculum can be better designed and supported.</p>

<p>I also don’t think IQ is static- while my daughter at 4 & 8yrs tested with 160+ iq, my impression was that was because she had particular verbal strengths that were similar to someone in their 30’s for some parts of the test, however- it didn’t necessarily mean that she was a savant or that she didn’t have to spend hours studying at Reed.</p>

<p>By the time you are an adult, while an IQ test can support identification of learning problems- that hadn’t been identified earlier ( or ones that develop as a result of injury or illness)- I don’t think they are used that routinely. They are lenghty and expensive to administer- if our insurance hadn’t already paid for it- I wouldn’t have sought it out)</p>

<p>Also- not to brag- but to illustrate what I mean- I have been told by several people including my Dr who has a degree from Stanford, that I am one of the most intelligent people they have ever met, but my problems with focus and sequencing interfere with me accomplishing as much as I would like, however I hope with early identification and support, others who have similar strengths and challenges, will be better able to contribute to society and not have to wait until they are ready to retire to know what “they want to do when they grow up”
:)</p>

[anothermom2]

<p>I have to say that what I think is most important for all children is that they are challenged to their own appropriate level. Some want more and more, and at the other end others need remedial help to get to grade level. It is heart breaking that all children do not get what they need from school.<br>
In the lower grades, it was my opinion that all needed to be round pegs, and that the identification of “gifted” students was a highly flawed process. I would never recommend this particular school. A few talented teachers who saw students as individuals and gave more individualized assignments to students who wanted to work ahead were a blessing. They were too few and too far between. The teacher of the “gifted” spent more time telling parents how gifted she was then really planning for her students needs. I think test results are only part of the picture, and many students do not get appropriate enrichment because they are pegged incorrectly due to the test results (and at such a young age too.)</p>

[jonri]

<p>

my understanding is that adult IQ tests don’t go as high as 157.

</p>

<p>Simply untrue. </p>

<p>And, BTW, by law, Hunter Elementary can’t be more than 60% Caucasian. </p>

<p>And, of course, all those classrooms in suburbia are filled with kids from all socioeconomic levels and reflect the racial make up of the nation.</p>

[mimk6]

<p>Years ago, my son, who had a late birthday, was assessed for kindergarten readiness at a non-competitive West Coast school. We knew he might be better off with the extra year, rather than always being the super-youngest kid. We also knew he wasn’t good at meeting strangers, etc. which is what the assessment involved. But we were shocked to get a call from the school telling us that our son had “failed” the kindergarten readiness test. My husband said, “Can you please explain to me how a four year old can fail anything?”</p>

[mimk6]

<p>Re how high IQ tests can go – it depends on the test. Some have lower ceilings than others.</p>

[SV2]

<p>

Quote:
my understanding is that adult IQ tests don’t go as high as 157.</p>

<p>Simply untrue.

</p>

<p>I may be wrong about the ceiling for adult IQ tests, but I’m quite certain that that figure of 157 represents the IQ of these subjects as children when they were tested for entrance to Hunter, not as adults. Subotnik, in her 1993 publication, says that she interviewed alumni of Hunter alumni who had graduated between 1949-1960 to find that they were “non-materialistic[…] in good health, content, and exhibited a notable lack of exceptional achievement.”</p>

[DonnaL]

<p>mimk6, I quickly scanned the first line of your post # 16, and thought for a fraction of a second that you were saying that your son was “arrested” for kindergarten readiness. I guess I have the thread about the 12-year old girl arrested for doodling on my mind.</p>

[bookworm]

<p>AM,
Absolutely no offense taken. One of the boys that fit the criteria mentioned was son of an acquaintance, so I know he is now in college at HYP. His issue was more OCD, and my report reflected how well he did without time limitations. Years later, he was allowed to take untimed tests (not based on my testing, but later ones). My report emphasized the giftedness and the accommodations needed. Another boy had problems with fine motor skills, and was referred to an OT. Another boy picked up missing parts on inanimate objects, but not on faces. One girl could not handle puzzles (had never played with one), so I substituted a maze test and she did splendidly. I had a very young Asian boy who did exceptionally well–so fast, got bonus points–on one subtest. His father tried the test for himself. He tried one after another, and always fell shy of his son. The boy was jumping with glee, and the FA was truly proud of him.</p>

<p>Anyway, I would not make dx on young children, but point out strengths and weaknesses, and offer suggestions. The point of individualized testing was that variations in style could be observed, a child could be prompted to offer a fuller explanation, a shy child allowed to make several visits to gain comfort with the tester, etc etc. Many other materials are available to use if a child seemed weak in some aspect.</p>

<p>A psychologist could recommend “gifted” regardless of a number.</p>

<p>Its hard on a forum to answer anything completely. It was easier to respond to private e-mails.</p>

<p>My S did not not do well on preK screening. The tester was not a psychologist. When my S gave a wrong answer, she leaned forward, touched his shoulder, and lovingly said, “That’s OK, dear”. Needless to say, my S started to answer all wrong. When she asked him if he knew anything with wheels, and he said ‘no’ then held up his hot wheel car in his hand and began to spin the wheels. I kept quiet until the end, then asked S about the wheels. He said "cars, bikes,… and offered answers to other Qs.
MINK6–she probably tested your S too!!!</p>