+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 137
  1. #1

    NYC gifted and talented summary testing results 2013-2014

    Here is the preliminary summary of testers by for gifted and talented programs in the city.

    For the first time in four years, fewer than 1,000 incoming kindergartners (921) scored in the 99th percentile on the city's gifted and talented exams.

    There are still more than twice as many top-scoring children than there are seats in the five most selective citywide programs.

    According to the Anderson School website, "Your child must have a combined G&T score in the 99th percentile for a parent to attend an Open House, although students who scored at or above the 97th percentile may still apply here." Tours of the citywide program at PS 85 in Queens likewise are only open to the 99th-percentile scorers. NEST + M, Brooklyn School of Inquiry and the TAG Young Scholars in East Harlem offer open houses to parents of children scoring in the 97th percentile and up.

    Name:  g&tgrade2013.jpg
Views: 19589
Size:  89.6 KB

    Below is a spreadsheet of the G&T test results for children entering kindergarten broken out by district:

    Name:  g&tbydistrict2013.jpg
Views: 20013
Size:  280.9 KB

    A total of 921 kindergarten applicants scored 99 on the G&T breakdown, well below the 1607 from 2012. Below is the data by district:

    Name:  g&t99s2013.jpg
Views: 19805
Size:  266.3 KB

  2. #2
    To see district results for other grades, see below:


  3. #3
    To see 99 percentiles broken out by districts for other grades, click on the attachment below:



    http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/134...gewu4peogelsil

  4. #4
    Good stuff, thanks for the stats. So many qualified kids will be left out of the programs

    The DOE should just realize that there is a sizable chunk of the student population that is qualified for advanced learning. If you're going to teach these kids anyways (they have to), you might as well offer more classes with advanced curriculum instead of wasting their time.

    1 + 1 = 2

  5. #5
    Do not see an attachment. Can you, please repost.

  6. #6
    I included the links to the embedded attachments - it usually takes a couple seconds for them to load since the docs are actually embedded into the posts.

  7. #7
    Thank you so much. Will be way easier to rank my choices for 1st grade. Were the extra seats sourced from the class size increase from 25 in K to 30 in 1st grade?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ancheto View Post
    Thank you so much. Will be way easier to rank my choices for 1st grade. Were the extra seats sourced from the class size increase from 25 in K to 30 in 1st grade?
    How do you know how many seats they'll open up for first grade? I asked that yesterday at P.S. 198. They said they can take up to 32 kids in first grade, but the classes have less than that" 27 or 28. So I don't know how they decide how many kids to take ... perhaps they offered 32 seats but only 27 accepted ... does anyone know how many NEW seats open up in first grade and who decides on that number: the schools or the DOE?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by lorabt View Post
    How do you know how many seats they'll open up for first grade? I asked that yesterday at P.S. 198. They said they can take up to 32 kids in first grade, but the classes have less than that" 27 or 28. So I don't know how they decide how many kids to take ... perhaps they offered 32 seats but only 27 accepted ... does anyone know how many NEW seats open up in first grade and who decides on that number: the schools or the DOE?
    From the little I know seats open from K to 1st grade due to increase in the allowed class size. Drop-outs if any may add to this as well as seats that for one reason or another remained unfilled in K. For example my kid's current G&T program is wonderful, but from 50 seats offered only 41 were filled. This leaves at least 9 for 1st grade. We scored citywide again and want to change only to secure continuity for. middle school.

  10. #10
    The chart below may give some insight into the standing of your child’s score in relation to the scores of other students within the same percentile rank. This may be useful if DOE considers composite scores rather than applying a lottery to determine placement.

    I generated the graph using available information from the tables provided in the above postings and information from the score reports, such as 13559 kids tested, with a population mean of 100 and population standard deviation of 16 for a normalized scale of 40 to 160.

    The blue series of bars represent the predicted distribution using a Normal (Gaussian) probability distribution. For 13559 tested children, 338 of them should get an NNAT score of 100. For higher scores such as 150 and above, only 1 child or so is expected to attain score at 150, 151, etc.

    The red series of bars represent the actual distribution of test results for the combined OLSAT and NNAT score. Since DOE does not provide frequency distributions for the verbal and nonverbal sections, I assumed that the overall percentile ranks are correlated with the NNAT score distribution. Furthermore, DOE provided frequencies by percentile, and not by the scaled score. By extrapolation of the Normal probability distribution, it can be shown that the 99 percentile rank encompasses scaled NNAT scores between 138 and 160. Since there were 921 test results for the 99 percentile, the 921 were allocated equally among the scores between 138 and 160, meaning there were 40 children scoring 138, 40 children scoring 139, etc. Of course this is not precise because DOE did not provide frequencies by scaled score, but this allocation is a good conservative approximation. The same allocation is applied to the 97-98 percentile for the 942 children who scored in this range, as well as to the 2439 who scored between 90 and 96.

    A very interesting observation from this graph indicates that the test is seriously flawed. As can be seen from the graph, many more children scored in the 90th to 99th percentile than is expected. The 99th percentile should only have 108 children in this range, but 921 achieved this rank. For the 97-98th percentile, 222 children are predicted in this range, but there were 942. For the 90-96th percentile, 881 are predicted, but there were actually 2439. The net result is that 3089 children scored above the 90th percentile that should not be the case. These children very likely received test prep that brought them up from the 89th percentile and below to the 90 percentile and above. Therefore, 3089 out of the 4302 who scored in the 90th+ percentile are not truly gifted. Conclusion: The wealthier parents spend money on test prep to boost their child’s scores, invalidating the purpose of the test, which is to identify gifted children not children who received prior instruction for the test.

    Name:  NNAT dist.jpg
Views: 18227
Size:  36.9 KB
    Last edited by Stuy81; 04-10-2013 at 10:53 AM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts