In Arguing Over the Right Age for Gifted Testing, G…
In Arguing Over the Right Age for Gifted Testing, G…
uaetodaynews.com — In Arguing Over the Right Age for Gifted Testing, G&T Gatekeepers Miss the Point – The 74
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
There is an ongoing controversy in America regarding the optimal age to test a child for entry into public school gifted-and-talented programs. In New York City, incoming kindergartners are evaluated via teacher recommendationsthough Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has said he would get rid of such an early entry point and delay assessment until second grade for a third grade G&T placement.
This has sent many subscribers to my NYC School Secrets mailing list into a panic. Not because they necessarily believe their children are gifted, but because a G&T program is often the only chance to give students an education slightly better than what’s otherwise offered in a city where almost half of students fail to meet an already low bar for grade-level performance.
Testing in second grade for a third grade G&T entry, however, would put NYC in line with other districts. New Jersey districts test kids in first and second grades. Los Angeles also begins in second grade and continues admissions testing up through middle school.
But a bigger issue than when to open G&T is when to close it. Once children have been labeled “gifted,” it doesn’t seem that they are ever retested for the duration of their academic career. Furthermore, in many places, if children miss the optimal window for demonstrating “giftedness,” their academic options grow more limited.
Is that a sensible policy? A new paper in the journal Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities suggests otherwise:
(C)lassifications (of giftedness) are largely unwarranted. Those showing high cognitive ability at early childhood might lose their marks as they age. Conversely, those showing average cognitive ability may increase their marks as they age…. Of those scoring one standard deviation above the mean at age 7, only a tiny minority preserve their high-ability marks afterwards. over, some children scoring below the standards of high ability at age 7 move upward in the cognitive distribution.
What does this mean for education policy?
For some, it suggests schools should scrap all G&T programs for kids under 12, as that’s when what the authors describe as general cognitive ability begins to stabilize. This is the approach NYC attempted — and failed to accomplish — in 2021.
For others, it means retesting those already in G&T programs and, if their score dips below the threshold, booting them back to general ed. Some NYC parents have privately forwarded me communications from their schools pushing to remove a child from advanced classes due to underperformance. Similar scenarios have popped up on gifted message boards across the country, including students being asked to retest.
But my position when it comes to education has always been more, not less. Instead of cutting NYC G&T programs because not enough Hispanic or Black students are enrolled, as repeatedly advocated by former Mayor Bill de Blasio, I lobbied for opening more such programsso more children would have access.
In that same vein, students should be tested before age 7 — and again after.
If students show high ability after third grade, they should be moved into a G&T program. In NYC, this is almost impossible due to space limitations. As it is, at the kindergarten level, over 9,000 students applied for only 2,500 spots. There wasn’t enough room to accommodate even all those who qualified at age 5, much less those who might meet the criteria down the road. But this is a solvable problem. General education classrooms can be converted for G&T based on the number of students eligible for a seat. As the overall student population wouldn’t increase, just changing the classification shouldn’t cost the district any more money, at any grade level.
The trickier question comes from what to do with students who previously qualified as “gifted” but, upon retesting, no longer score as high. In a scarcity model, where there are only so many spots to go around, the instinct might be to return them to general ed.
However, I would venture that a child who has been keeping up with the work in a “gifted” classroom should be allowed to remain, in spite of a newly recalculated score.
This way, the system would accommodate both those who’ve demonstrated the potential to do higher-level work and those who are already doing it. Does it really matter if they’re called “high potential” or “high achieving,” as long as they’re capable?
This approach would be especially beneficial for underrepresented, low-income and minority students. While advocates for getting rid of all G&T programs claim they are doing it for the welfare of the kidsresearch, including in the paper quoted above, shows the opposite. Underrepresented, low-income and minority students actually benefit the most from engaging with what the paper’s authors call “cognitively demanding activities.” For these kids, the “fade out effect” and drop in General Cognitive Ability scores upon being removed from a rigorous environment is actually more pronounced if they are returned to a less intellectually stimulating classroom.
In fact, the earlier such students are placed in G&T programs, the better they tend to perform in the long run, up through high school.
A robust G&T system would work for all students. It would both identify young high achievers — whether they are naturally “gifted” or have simply been exposed to more of what’s on the test — and expand to make room for late bloomers. It would regularly retest children to make sure they are at the correct academic level and offer those with high potential the opportunity to tackle more challenging work, while rewarding hard workers with the opportunity to keep doing it — regardless of an IQ score that seesaws at least until age 21.
It’s a system that would always offer more. Never less.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;
n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=();t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)(0);s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,
document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘626037510879173’); // 626037510879173
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
Disclaimer: This news article has been republished exactly as it appeared on its original source, without any modification.
We do not take any responsibility for its content, which remains solely the responsibility of the original publisher.
Author: Alina Adams
Published on: 2025-10-19 14:30:00
Source: www.the74million.org
{“@context”:”http://schema.org”,”@type”:”NewsArticle”,”dateCreated”:”2025-10-20T03:18:33+04:00″,”datePublished”:”2025-10-20T03:18:33+04:00″,”dateModified”:”2025-10-20T03:25:48+04:00″,”headline”:”In Arguing Over the Right Age for Gifted Testing, G&T Gatekeepers Miss the Point u2013 The 74″,”name”:”In Arguing Over the Right Age for Gifted Testing, G&T Gatekeepers Miss the Point u2013 The 74″,”keywords”:”‘They,Arguing,G&T,Gifted,Grade,High,ldquo,,over,rdquo,Right,rsquo,students,testing,would”,”url”:”https://uaetodaynews.com/in-arguing-over-the-right-age-for-gifted-testing-gt-gatekeepers-miss-the-point-the-74/”,”description”:”Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter There is an ongoing controversy in America regarding the optimal age to test a child for entry into public school”,”copyrightYear”:”2025″,”articleSection”:”Education”,”articleBody”:”n n Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newslettern n n n nThere is an ongoing controversy in America regarding the optimal age to test a child for entry into public school gifted-and-talented programs. In New York City, incoming kindergartners are evaluated via teacher recommendationsthough Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has said he would get rid of such an early entry point and delay assessment until second grade for a third grade G&T placement.nnnnThis has sent many subscribers to my NYC School Secrets mailing list into a panic. Not because they necessarily believe their children are gifted, but because a G&T program is often the only chance to give students an education slightly better than what’s otherwise offered in a city where almost half of students fail to meet an already low bar for grade-level performance. nnnnnnnnTesting in second grade for a third grade G&T entry, however, would put NYC in line with other districts. New Jersey districts test kids in first and second grades. Los Angeles also begins in second grade and continues admissions testing up through middle school. nnnnBut a bigger issue than when to open G&T is when to close it. Once children have been labeled “gifted,” it doesn’t seem that they are ever retested for the duration of their academic career. Furthermore, in many places, if children miss the optimal window for demonstrating “giftedness,” their academic options grow more limited.nnnnIs that a sensible policy? A new paper in the journal Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities suggests otherwise:nnnn(C)lassifications (of giftedness) are largely unwarranted. Those showing high cognitive ability at early childhood might lose their marks as they age. Conversely, those showing average cognitive ability may increase their marks as they age…. Of those scoring one standard deviation above the mean at age 7, only a tiny minority preserve their high-ability marks afterwards. over, some children scoring below the standards of high ability at age 7 move upward in the cognitive distribution.nnnnWhat does this mean for education policy?nnnnRelatedNYC Teachers Believe Many Kids Are Gifted & Talented. Why Doesn’t the District?nnnnFor some, it suggests schools should scrap all G&T programs for kids under 12, as that’s when what the authors describe as general cognitive ability begins to stabilize. This is the approach NYC attempted — and failed to accomplish — in 2021. nnnnFor others, it means retesting those already in G&T programs and, if their score dips below the threshold, booting them back to general ed. Some NYC parents have privately forwarded me communications from their schools pushing to remove a child from advanced classes due to underperformance. Similar scenarios have popped up on gifted message boards across the country, including students being asked to retest.nnnnBut my position when it comes to education has always been more, not less. Instead of cutting NYC G&T programs because not enough Hispanic or Black students are enrolled, as repeatedly advocated by former Mayor Bill de Blasio, I lobbied for opening more such programsso more children would have access.nnnnIn that same vein, students should be tested before age 7 — and again after. nnnnIf students show high ability after third grade, they should be moved into a G&T program. In NYC, this is almost impossible due to space limitations. As it is, at the kindergarten level, over 9,000 students applied for only 2,500 spots. There wasn’t enough room to accommodate even all those who qualified at age 5, much less those who might meet the criteria down the road. But this is a solvable problem. General education classrooms can be converted for G&T based on the number of students eligible for a seat. As the overall student population wouldn’t increase, just changing the classification shouldn’t cost the district any more money, at any grade level.nnnnRelated G&T Classes Would Help School Diversity, Not Harm ItnnnnThe trickier question comes from what to do with students who previously qualified as “gifted” but, upon retesting, no longer score as high. In a scarcity model, where there are only so many spots to go around, the instinct might be to return them to general ed.nnnnHowever, I would venture that a child who has been keeping up with the work in a “gifted” classroom should be allowed to remain, in spite of a newly recalculated score. nnnnThis way, the system would accommodate both those who’ve demonstrated the potential to do higher-level work and those who are already doing it. Does it really matter if they’re called “high potential” or “high achieving,” as long as they’re capable? nnnnThis approach would be especially beneficial for underrepresented, low-income and minority students. While advocates for getting rid of all G&T programs claim they are doing it for the welfare of the kidsresearch, including in the paper quoted above, shows the opposite. Underrepresented, low-income and minority students actually benefit the most from engaging with what the paper’s authors call “cognitively demanding activities.” For these kids, the “fade out effect” and drop in General Cognitive Ability scores upon being removed from a rigorous environment is actually more pronounced if they are returned to a less intellectually stimulating classroom. nnnnIn fact, the earlier such students are placed in G&T programs, the better they tend to perform in the long run, up through high school.nnnnRelatedWhere Are the Black Kids? Tracking, G&T and NYC’s Top High SchoolsnnnnA robust G&T system would work for all students. It would both identify young high achievers — whether they are naturally “gifted” or have simply been exposed to more of what’s on the test — and expand to make room for late bloomers. It would regularly retest children to make sure they are at the correct academic level and offer those with high potential the opportunity to tackle more challenging work, while rewarding hard workers with the opportunity to keep doing it — regardless of an IQ score that seesaws at least until age 21.nnnnIt’s a system that would always offer more. Never less. nn n n n Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newslettern n n !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?n n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=();t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;n t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)(0);s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,n document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);n fbq(‘init’, ‘626037510879173’); // 626037510879173n fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);n rnDisclaimer: This news article has been republished exactly as it appeared on its original source, without any modification. rnWe do not take any responsibility for its content, which remains solely the responsibility of the original publisher.rnrnAuthor: Alina AdamsrnPublished on: 2025-10-19 14:30:00rnSource: www.the74million.orgrnn”,”publisher”:{“@id”:”#Publisher”,”@type”:”Organization”,”name”:”uaetodaynews”,”logo”:{“@type”:”ImageObject”,”url”:”https://uaetodaynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/images-e1759081190269.png”},”sameAs”:[“https://www.facebook.com/uaetodaynewscom”,”https://www.pinterest.com/uaetodaynews/”,”https://www.instagram.com/uaetoday_news_com/”]},”sourceOrganization”:{“@id”:”#Publisher”},”copyrightHolder”:{“@id”:”#Publisher”},”mainEntityOfPage”:{“@type”:”WebPage”,”@id”:”https://uaetodaynews.com/in-arguing-over-the-right-age-for-gifted-testing-gt-gatekeepers-miss-the-point-the-74/”,”breadcrumb”:{“@id”:”#Breadcrumb”}},”author”:{“@type”:”Person”,”name”:”uaetodaynews”,”url”:”https://uaetodaynews.com/author/arabsongmedia-net/”},”image”:{“@type”:”ImageObject”,”url”:”https://i0.wp.com/uaetodaynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/gifted-and-talented-age-825×495.jpg?fit=825%2C495&ssl=1″,”width”:1200,”height”:495}}
Disclaimer: This news article has been republished exactly as it appeared on its original source, without any modification.
We do not take any responsibility for its content, which remains solely the responsibility of the original publisher.
Author: uaetodaynews
Published on: 2025-10-20 02:18:00
Source: uaetodaynews.com
Default author bio in English. Add your expertise, links, and contact info here to boost E-E-A-T. | نبذة افتراضية عن الكاتب بالعربية. أضف خبراتك، روابطك، ومعلومات الاتصال هنا لتعزيز E-E-A-T.
