Message
Anonymous wrote:Ooh people at CVS are mean too
Happily, the people working at my local CVS are really nice. However, they're slowly disappearing anyway as more of those self-checkers get installed.
Anonymous wrote:how about a data sheet on teacher/student ratios in various grades in private schools?
Good idea. I'm willing to add a data sheet and input the various ratios for each school. But I'm probably not going to be able to do all the legwork to scour the school websites for ratio info. If you and others will start posting links here to where the student:teacher ratio is on each school's website, I will plug that data into a new sheet. Thanks for the idea.
Another idea -- Is anyone interested in another survey to summarize how many (and which) schools people are applying to this season? I did a survey last year on admissions results, and it seemed moderately successful and informative. I probably will do a similar admissions results survey in March. But now while the application season is drawing to a close, would people be interested in getting a sense at how many other people are applying where? If so, just post here to let me know. If there's enough interest, I'll do something. I'm thinking of a very short set of questions, covering just how many schools you're applying to, for what grade, and a tick-off list of school names. If there are other questions that people would find useful, post them here. I suspect someone will suggest including a question about WPPSI scores, and I'm willing to add that if there is significant interest. But I also think posting test score data may deter some people from participating and also tends to distract from other issues.
Just let me know what you think.
Anonymous wrote:Is this site in working order ? I have typed in DC's school, zip, TIN number and District of C and get " 0 matches". This school has been in DC 100 years. You thoughts, SAM2 ?
What school? I've discovered that schools with a religious link often do not have reports listed. I assume because they are able to take the position they are exempt from filing 990s.
Many thanks for the various thoughtful comments from yesterday afternoon. I appreciate it.
I noted a seeming inconsistency between (1) allegedly imperfect tests, and (2) seemingly no underqualified children in gifted/magnet programs. It seems what several people are responding is that there actually is no inconsistency because the combination of admissions requirements for gifted programs (standardized test + teacher evaluations + grades + parent statement) ensures that no underqualified students are admitted. I'm summarizing, so certainly some nuance is lost, but isn't that essentially what people are saying?
If so, that makes some sense to me. Certainly a combination of admissions factors (test + teacher rec + grades + parent statement) should be more accurate than just the raw test score. But I'm still a little curious that the process seemingly never misfires. Yes, I know some people noted that some few children leave because of issues like organization issues and personal tragedy, but no one identifies students who "overperform" on admissions, and then lag on later academics. Does it make logical sense that the selection process is essentially flawless? When I read academic literature on identification of gifted and talented youth, many researchers struggle with finding ways to accurately identify them. But if the simple step of including teacher evaluations and grades in the mix leads to near-perfect accuracy, then why would they struggle so much? Thinking statistically, even if the selection process is very good, wouldn't we all expect about 10-20% of the students to struggle? Wouldn't it be odd if nearly all of them are earning only As and Bs?
I appreciate your comments. Also, just to be crystal clear: I am not criticizing the gifted/magnet programs or anyone's children; I am not making some subtle comment about public versus private education; I am not trying to comment on whether gifted children should be accelerated; I am not trying to debate the "plasticity of IQ"! I'm simply trying to understand what's behind an odd inconsistency. TIA.
I noted a seeming inconsistency between (1) allegedly imperfect tests, and (2) seemingly no underqualified children in gifted/magnet programs. It seems what several people are responding is that there actually is no inconsistency because the combination of admissions requirements for gifted programs (standardized test + teacher evaluations + grades + parent statement) ensures that no underqualified students are admitted. I'm summarizing, so certainly some nuance is lost, but isn't that essentially what people are saying?
If so, that makes some sense to me. Certainly a combination of admissions factors (test + teacher rec + grades + parent statement) should be more accurate than just the raw test score. But I'm still a little curious that the process seemingly never misfires. Yes, I know some people noted that some few children leave because of issues like organization issues and personal tragedy, but no one identifies students who "overperform" on admissions, and then lag on later academics. Does it make logical sense that the selection process is essentially flawless? When I read academic literature on identification of gifted and talented youth, many researchers struggle with finding ways to accurately identify them. But if the simple step of including teacher evaluations and grades in the mix leads to near-perfect accuracy, then why would they struggle so much? Thinking statistically, even if the selection process is very good, wouldn't we all expect about 10-20% of the students to struggle? Wouldn't it be odd if nearly all of them are earning only As and Bs?
I appreciate your comments. Also, just to be crystal clear: I am not criticizing the gifted/magnet programs or anyone's children; I am not making some subtle comment about public versus private education; I am not trying to comment on whether gifted children should be accelerated; I am not trying to debate the "plasticity of IQ"! I'm simply trying to understand what's behind an odd inconsistency. TIA.
It's interesting to see this thread revived after lying dormant for almost a year. The thinking behind my original point was that there seems to be a big inconsistency between two ideas:
(1) The claim from many people on DCUM that all these standardized/normed intelligence tests (WISC, SB, CogAT, Raven, etc) are all badly flawed. These critics often argue that scores are wildly inflated, and easily skewed.
(2) The fact that once children are admitted to a gifted program, most of them generally stay on a gifted track throughout school, and very few are moved back to the general student population. I've seen this claim expressed in a number of research papers on education and giftedness, and many people on this thread repeat it.
There seems to be an inconsistency between these two ideas. If the intelligence tests really are fatally flawed, then lots of those students initially admitted to the gifted programs later will be unable to keep up with the challenging work. Even if the tests are mostly accurate -- say 75% accurate -- then still 25% of the students who score highly on these tests will later struggle in the gifted classrooms because they don't actually meet the criteria.
How to reconcile the seeming inconsistency?
(A) One possibility is that the gifted classroom teachers are willing to "carry" the not-quite-gifted students based on their inaccurate test scores, and permit them to earn good grades even though they cannot keep up with the work. But this seems hard to stomach, since it means these teachers are allowing these not-quite-gifted students to occupy seats that should be filled by other students. Also, if the academics are as rigorous as everyone claims, then carrying a marginal student would be hard. And those marginal students almost certainly would bring home mediocre grades if they are struggling with the academics.
(B) Another possibility is that the gifted classrooms are not really that advanced after all. If some percentage of the students are not-quite-gifted, but all of them are doing well in the gifted classroom, then maybe the academics aren't quite as challenging as some parents like to claim. (I doubt anyone here will like this theory, but please save your flames, since I'm just brainstorming possibilities, not attacking your child!)
(C) A third possibility is that parents on this thread reject the premise #1 above: they really do believe the screening tests are accurate. Maybe I'm seeing lots of people on DCUM criticizing these screening tests, but none of the critics come from the parents of children in the MoCo gifted programs, since all you parents believe the screening tests are accurate. But even this possibility is hard for me to swallow, because several people here are saying hardly any students ever leave the gifted programs for academic reasons (only for personal preference, "organizational issues," or personal tragedy). If that's true, then that suggests the screening tests are nearly 100% accurate indicators of academic ability! Is that really what people here are saying?
Sorry for the long post. I'm just trying to spell out my thinking and curious questions on these issues. I'd appreciate any insight on other ways to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent ideas.
Sam2
(1) The claim from many people on DCUM that all these standardized/normed intelligence tests (WISC, SB, CogAT, Raven, etc) are all badly flawed. These critics often argue that scores are wildly inflated, and easily skewed.
(2) The fact that once children are admitted to a gifted program, most of them generally stay on a gifted track throughout school, and very few are moved back to the general student population. I've seen this claim expressed in a number of research papers on education and giftedness, and many people on this thread repeat it.
There seems to be an inconsistency between these two ideas. If the intelligence tests really are fatally flawed, then lots of those students initially admitted to the gifted programs later will be unable to keep up with the challenging work. Even if the tests are mostly accurate -- say 75% accurate -- then still 25% of the students who score highly on these tests will later struggle in the gifted classrooms because they don't actually meet the criteria.
How to reconcile the seeming inconsistency?
(A) One possibility is that the gifted classroom teachers are willing to "carry" the not-quite-gifted students based on their inaccurate test scores, and permit them to earn good grades even though they cannot keep up with the work. But this seems hard to stomach, since it means these teachers are allowing these not-quite-gifted students to occupy seats that should be filled by other students. Also, if the academics are as rigorous as everyone claims, then carrying a marginal student would be hard. And those marginal students almost certainly would bring home mediocre grades if they are struggling with the academics.
(B) Another possibility is that the gifted classrooms are not really that advanced after all. If some percentage of the students are not-quite-gifted, but all of them are doing well in the gifted classroom, then maybe the academics aren't quite as challenging as some parents like to claim. (I doubt anyone here will like this theory, but please save your flames, since I'm just brainstorming possibilities, not attacking your child!)
(C) A third possibility is that parents on this thread reject the premise #1 above: they really do believe the screening tests are accurate. Maybe I'm seeing lots of people on DCUM criticizing these screening tests, but none of the critics come from the parents of children in the MoCo gifted programs, since all you parents believe the screening tests are accurate. But even this possibility is hard for me to swallow, because several people here are saying hardly any students ever leave the gifted programs for academic reasons (only for personal preference, "organizational issues," or personal tragedy). If that's true, then that suggests the screening tests are nearly 100% accurate indicators of academic ability! Is that really what people here are saying?
Sorry for the long post. I'm just trying to spell out my thinking and curious questions on these issues. I'd appreciate any insight on other ways to reconcile these seemingly inconsistent ideas.
Sam2
I think the answer depends on how many schools you like, and what's your confidence level about getting admitted. If you are determined to go private, then definitely have at least 1-2 safety schools on your list. Here are the results (https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewanalytics?formkey=dFFHRklQWDFuOWNaSlMtdlRPd3hORmc6MA) of a rough admissions survey I set up last year (http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/151144.page). It looks like most people apply to at least 3-4. I believe the high number of people applying to only one school are most likely younger siblings of already admitted students.
Anonymous wrote:If the OLSAT is given by people employed by the NY school system and the WPPSI is given by private psychologists paid by the parents of the child, um, well, maybe there's a bit of a difference in motivation to find high scores.
I'm generally am just as cynical as you, so I tend to like such assessments of hidden incentives. But I'm not sure it makes sense here .... What motivation would a private psych have to boost the WPPSI scores? The psych is getting paid the same amount for the test regardless. I suppose being known as an "easy grader" might create some repeat business, but not much since most families have only 2-3 kids at most. And if the psych does skew all kids' results to give higher-than-warranted scores to everyone, then she runs the risk of (1) losing the schools' referral business, since her scores become worthless to the schools, and (2) potentially risking her license. I seem to recall some child psychologist actually posting on DCUM several months ago, saying that the WPPSI and similar tests really are designed to prevent psychologists from skewing with the results.
See here for spin off thread for commentary on WPPSI scores and related issues -- http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/201268.page#1951643 I'm just doing my part to limit litter on this thread.
I'm creating this spin off thread so people who have commentary about the "Just the Scores" thread can post here. I did not start that other thread, but I can see its OP's hope of getting just clean info on WPPSI scores is going to become harder and harder. Maybe the people who want to comment about WPPSI issues or otherwise analyze the scores can do it here instead.
As a start, here's my comment: I'm amazed just like many others here that there are so many super-high WPPSI scores. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with self-selection bias. People who have smart kids are more likely to sign them up for the WPPSI, people whose children scored highly are more likely to post about it on DCUM, etc.
I am trying to think of other ways to look at representative groups of scores, besides just asking people here to post them. I have not come up with much so far, but I did have one idea. NYC tests huge numbers of preK children each year for admission into the gifted & talented programs. As I understand it, the cutoffs are 90th percentile to be considered for District-level G&T programs, and 99th percentile to be almost guaranteed a spot. NYC uses the OLSAT for testing, which I believe is pretty similar to the WPPSI. Here is are link to some statistics on OLSAT scores for NYC preK students: http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/35EFC620-DB98-4A85-B218-066C1D44FD2E/0/2004YOBGTHandbook.pdf (page 7).
14,088 preK students took the test for the 2011-12 school year. I'm not positive, but I think there are about 75-80k students per grade, so that's about 18% of the potentially eligible students taking the test. 4028 of the test takers scored above the 90th percentile, so that's about 29% of those taking the test, or about 5% of the total students in the grade. 970 of the test takers scored at the 99th percentile, and that's about 7% of 14k test takers, or 1% of the total grade.
Those figures seem statistically logical, which suggests to me that NYC's OLSAT is a decent snapshot of where those kids are at the moment. I'd like to assume the same holds true for the WPPSI in DC, but I suppose that's debatable.
As a start, here's my comment: I'm amazed just like many others here that there are so many super-high WPPSI scores. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with self-selection bias. People who have smart kids are more likely to sign them up for the WPPSI, people whose children scored highly are more likely to post about it on DCUM, etc.
I am trying to think of other ways to look at representative groups of scores, besides just asking people here to post them. I have not come up with much so far, but I did have one idea. NYC tests huge numbers of preK children each year for admission into the gifted & talented programs. As I understand it, the cutoffs are 90th percentile to be considered for District-level G&T programs, and 99th percentile to be almost guaranteed a spot. NYC uses the OLSAT for testing, which I believe is pretty similar to the WPPSI. Here is are link to some statistics on OLSAT scores for NYC preK students: http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/35EFC620-DB98-4A85-B218-066C1D44FD2E/0/2004YOBGTHandbook.pdf (page 7).
14,088 preK students took the test for the 2011-12 school year. I'm not positive, but I think there are about 75-80k students per grade, so that's about 18% of the potentially eligible students taking the test. 4028 of the test takers scored above the 90th percentile, so that's about 29% of those taking the test, or about 5% of the total students in the grade. 970 of the test takers scored at the 99th percentile, and that's about 7% of 14k test takers, or 1% of the total grade.
Those figures seem statistically logical, which suggests to me that NYC's OLSAT is a decent snapshot of where those kids are at the moment. I'd like to assume the same holds true for the WPPSI in DC, but I suppose that's debatable.
I think it's a great idea and should be very interesting. If it were me, I'd go back to the same tester and make it clear to her you're just doing this to learn as much about your child as possible and see how he's doing. She can best guide you on the most appropriate timing for the tests and any other considerations.
I seem to remember someone else posting a similar plan on DCUM a year or two ago. I don't recall how it turned out. You might check the archives to see if you can find her post, since it might include some good ideas.
I seem to remember someone else posting a similar plan on DCUM a year or two ago. I don't recall how it turned out. You might check the archives to see if you can find her post, since it might include some good ideas.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of students admitted to local private schools for 9th grade (the same year as admission to Blair and TJ) were awarded NMSF honors. That would be closer to an apples-to-apples comparison.
Here are the guides I used when we last bought a TV. I found them pretty useful.
http://www.consumersearch.com/televisions-0
http://www.consumersearch.com/lcd-tv/review
I found good prices and selection at Costco. Good luck.
http://www.consumersearch.com/televisions-0
http://www.consumersearch.com/lcd-tv/review
I found good prices and selection at Costco. Good luck.
Here are a couple recent items on why the rich often feel poor.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201103/why-do-the-rich-feel-poor
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/why-so-many-rich-people-dont-feel-very-rich/
If you want to feel rich, I guess the solution is to hang out with people who earn less than you do.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201103/why-do-the-rich-feel-poor
Such judgments depend on context. .... "Wealthy" compared with what? The relevant context here is the growing gap between the rich and the poor. That makes the poor feel poorer, but it also makes the rich at the bottom end of the spectrum feel poor as well.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/why-so-many-rich-people-dont-feel-very-rich/
Why don’t people at the 90th percentile of the income distribution feel particularly rich? The answer is simple: because any Americans who are richer than this cohort are so much richer. ... Those in the middle earn a little less than people a few percentiles up from them, whereas those at the top earn a lot less than their counterparts in nearby, higher percentiles. ... In other words, at least in dollar terms, there is much greater inequality at the very top of the income scale than at the bottom or in the middle. ... when evaluating their own incomes, most families are trying to keep up with the Joneses: they envy the wealthier neighbor whose lifestyle they aim to match. And in dollar terms, the rich are falling far shorter of their respective Joneses than the middle-income and lower-income are. ... It is perhaps no wonder, then, that so many people who are statistically rich call themselves “upper middle” or even “middle class.” They are much, much richer than lots of poor people, but also much, much poorer than some very visibly rich people. From their perspective, they truly are in the middle.
If you want to feel rich, I guess the solution is to hang out with people who earn less than you do.
It seems like it would be hard to compare these three, since Norwood and WES end at grade 8, and Holton doesn't start until grade 3. So you're really only comparing 3rd through 8th grade?