- This topic has 60 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 hour, 36 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
What is unfair about the existence of spring testing?
-
Waiting until the Spring to test is a gamble, because then no matter how well a child does, they will only get an offer if someone else in their Tier declines. I know it seems unfair but is it really?
-
you have a good point! but it should have been given as an option regardless. parents should have been made aware that spring testing would be available.
-
The fact that the waitlists are so large, and the spread between applicants and seats is so big just goes to show that CPS does not allocate their resources appropriately. If your child meets the criteria for selective enrollment there should be a viable path for your child to receive that curriculum within a reasonable drive from your house. Some of our neighborhood schools don’t have a in-school gifted program available either. It’s all very frustrating.
-
100% agree and then think about people who live on the Southwest side of the city, they have one selective enrollment elementary to pick from and no one even mentions that school when talking about SEES schools.
-
It used to be that you could get multiple SEES offers at once. Now, you get a single best offer from the list of choices and the offer throws you out of the waitlist for any other SEES. You then have to decline and manually add yourself back to the waitlist. Most would not even include a place they would truly consider because it may hurt their chances at the school they really want their child to attend. It also speeds up the process. I am not saying I prefer it this way, and others may have a list of drawbacks.
-
exactly!!
-
This is a really weird take. As a previous poster mentioned, scores are age-adjusted, so waiting to test offers literally no advantage. As was also previously mentioned, there is no guarantee that seats will even be available at your desired school(s) in the spring. Spring testers are inherently at a disadvantage.
Spring testing has been offered every year for as long as I can remember (2023-24), probably before then too. I’m not sure what this group of posters thinks is unfair about it…I guess people who missed testing in the initial window due to illness or who didn’t find out they were moving to Chicago until after the November deadline should just be SOL?
“we were told that in the fall, yes, but after seeing how this application cycle and admissions process has been managed i don’t feel terribly compelled to take their word for it.”
Can you share details on what you mean here? Of course the process is unnecessarily convoluted, but there’s no getting around that. Did something happen to make you say this?
-
“meets the criteria for selective enrollment”
All you need is a score in the 50th percentile to meet the minimum eligibility criteria. You think half the city’s kindergarten students should be taught 1st grade material?
There are plenty of problems with the system, but there’s also a problem with the level of entitlement that many (not saying you specifically) feel to a selective enrollment seat for their child. What they should do is not make you wait until 5th grade before advanced students can be allowed to do single-subject acceleration, so students who need it can be academically challenged at any school- no special SEES school needed.
-
what i posted above was told to me this morning by an employee of the office of access and enrollment. i believe their exact words were, “we didn’t even know spring testing would be offered.” i feel the OPTION to have children tested in the spring should have been provided to parents. it was not. the transparency would have been nice. i’m sorry you feel that’s a weird take.
-
I get your point. But there are many, many families with children in the 90-95th percentile and above waiting out in the cold like ours. Not to mention just the absurdity of having a med school match style system for 4 year olds – it’s ludicrous.
-
💯
90th percentile is great but not gifted. Earlier acceleration would be amazing and feels like the best win win for local schools to keep bright kids and parents to get the challenges they seek.
-
I don’t agree that it’s a weird take at all, I’m not sure how often they adjust the test based on age, but my situation is an example. My child took the last available date to test which was February 3rd. we are currently wait listed at #2 for our first choice. Late testing was offered in early April I believe, my child is 5, and has rapidly advanced since February 3rd and has been now reading full sentences and doing basic math since March. We’re being told no offers until the waitlist is adjusted for the late testers. So those who tested late had the opportunity to have extra time for their child to prepare or just continue to learn. And still be considered for the same spots on the waitlist as those who met the original cutoff date. So there is a possibility than an offer that could have gone to my child will go to someone who had the option to wait and test later whereas we had no idea that was even an option.
Unless the test/Evalution was drastically changed to one far more difficult for a 5 year old from the one administered to my child 2 months earlier then this is completely unfair. Somehow I doubt the evaluation was changed months after 2 months.
-
Pretty sure a lot of the phone reps are new, or at least that what my impression has been when calling. I generally get a better response if I email.
Can you help me make my point in a clearer way and possibly suggest a more apt analogy? “Pretty sure a lot of the phone reps are new, or at least that what my impression has been when calling. I generally get a better response if I email.
Is there something else that happened to make you so frustrated with the management of the process, or is it just the fact that they didn’t advertise the opportunity to test in the spring and not be able to join waitlists until most seats have already been filled? Again, it’s an unnecessarily convoluted process, but it makes zero sense to proactively advertise spring testing in the fall, when missing the chance to be considered during round 1 is such a clear disadvantage. It’s like getting mad over the fact that you purchased baseball tickets in advance, but the website didn’t notify you that you’d have the option to buy tickets from scalpers the day of the game.” Here’s the message board thread for context: “This is a really weird take. As a previous poster mentioned, scores are age-adjusted, so waiting to test offers literally no advantage. As was also previously mentioned, there is no guarantee that seats will even be available at your desired school(s) in the spring. Spring testers are inherently at a disadvantage.
Spring testing has been offered every year for as long as I can remember (2023-24), probably before then too. I’m not sure what this group of posters thinks is unfair about it…I guess people who missed testing in the initial window due to illness or who didn’t find out they were moving to Chicago until after the November deadline should just be SOL?
“we were told that in the fall, yes, but after seeing how this application cycle and admissions process has been managed i don’t feel terribly compelled to take their word for it.”
Can you share details on what you mean here? Of course the process is unnecessarily convoluted, but there’s no getting around that. Did something happen to make you say this?
05/01/2026 at 12:44 pm#21729Reply
anon
Guest
what i posted above was told to me this morning by an employee of the office of access and enrollment. i believe their exact words were, “we didn’t even know spring testing would be offered.” i feel the OPTION to have children tested in the spring should have been provided to parents. it was not. the transparency would have been nice. i’m sorry you feel that’s a weird take.”
Show moreYour core point is solid—you’re just getting a little tangled between (1) acknowledging the process is imperfect and (2) pushing back on the idea that something unfair or hidden happened. Tightening that distinction will make your argument land better.
Here’s a clearer, more focused version with a cleaner analogy:
I’ve had a similar experience calling—my impression is that a lot of the phone reps are newer, so I tend to get more consistent information via email.
That said, I want to separate two things: the process being complicated (which it absolutely is) and the idea that something was hidden or unfairly withheld. Spring testing has existed for years, but it’s not really presented as an “option” on equal footing with fall testing—it’s more of a contingency for families who miss the main window. Because of that, spring testers are inherently at a disadvantage in terms of available seats.
Given that, it wouldn’t really make sense to actively promote spring testing alongside fall testing. Doing so would suggest they’re comparable pathways, when they’re not.
I’m also curious—was there something specific this cycle that made you feel like the process was mismanaged, or is the frustration mainly about not being able to access waitlists earlier?
To me, it’s less like something being hidden and more like this: it’s like buying concert tickets during the main presale window versus trying to buy them the day of the show. The day-of option technically exists, but it’s not something organizers promote as an equivalent route, because availability is limited and unpredictable.
Why this works better:
It removes the slightly confrontational “getting mad over…” phrasing.
It clarifies your main claim: spring testing exists, but it’s not meant to be co-equal.
The analogy (concert presale vs. day-of tickets) is more intuitive and less likely to derail the conversation than the scalper example.
If you want it a bit sharper/more pointed, you could tweak one line:
“Promoting spring testing in the fall would actually be misleading, because it implies it offers the same access to seats, which it doesn’t.”
Let me know if you want a version that’s more direct or more diplomatic—this could swing either way depending on your goal in the thread.
I do think there’s a difference between the process being complicated (which it definitely is) and something being hidden. Spring testing has been around for years, but it’s not really meant to be an equal “option”- it’s more of a backup for people who miss the main window, and those applicants are at a disadvantage for seats.
Because of that, it wouldn’t really make sense to advertise it alongside fall testing- it would make it seem like they’re equivalent when they’re not.
Was there something specific this cycle that made it feel mismanaged, or is it just the spring testing thing?
To me it’s kind of like concert tickets- you’ve got the main presale, and then whatever’s left closer to the event. The second option exists, but it’s not really comparable, and it would be a weird take to get mad if you bought during presale and then got mad that you didn’t know there was an option to wait to buy tickets for worse seats for more money.
-
Lol I did ask AI to improve my analogy, just FYI.
-
They norm the scores based on age in years and months at the time of testing. It’s the same test, but they cut kids off when they “max out” on difficulty. That’s why some kids take 15 minutes and some take 80. Making up numbers here, but the basic idea is this: if a child is 4 years 5 months, they might only need to answer 11 questions right to be in the 95th percentile, but a child who is 5 years 1 month has to answer 17 questions right to get in the 95th percentile, and each question is a higher level of difficulty than the one before it.
-
we’ve all done it! 🙂 good tip re: emailing the office. i’ll remember that next time! i understand what you’re saying, but i think you’re missing my point about this purely being about disclosure/transparency. it’s not like being mad at scalpers. that kind of implies a person had knowledge the scalpers would exist. it’s more like this – you’re told there will be no secondary market when buying concert tickets in advance, then a secondary market is created anyway. that’s not a perfect analogy either… but my bottom line is that nobody likes to feel that they didn’t get to weigh pros and cons of timing and choose for themselves.
-
Yeah, idk. We don’t need to get into the weeds on the definition of “gifted”. I’m more concerned about whether or not my child can handle 1st grade material. He’s walking around the house shouting out advanced math problems right now. I’m frustrated at the idea that he’ll start school having to learn the colors of the rainbow and be bored out of his mind. There has to be a better way to do this.
-
I suspect part of it is that the spring window is only intended to be for make-up testing and that they accordingly have extremely limited availability. If that’s the case, advertising spring testing as an option for people who *could* have tested in the fall/winter but chose not to could create serious capacity issues.
Also I think I came off ruder than necessary with the “weird take” bit, so sorry about that! I do maintain that deliberately waiting for spring testing is a shockingly Bad Idea, though.
There’s always “what if” with testing- my kiddo came down with a stomach bug the night before her test date, was up vomiting until after midnight, but felt completely better by the morning. We tested, and kiddo did prove to have recovered, though ended up taking an uncharacteristic nap in the afternoon. They scored lower on the Non-Verbal section than practice tests suggested they would, and not high enough to get an offer anywhere we applied. What if we’d asked to reschedule? Would the score have been high enough then?
Hindsight can make you wonder if you should have waited to test, and it’s easy to look at particular circumstances and construct an imaginary alternate reality where you tested at a different time and got different (better) results. I do kind of wonder…would anyone here *actually* have purposefully waited to test in the spring, or is it just easy to get frustrated now about being unaware of that option because you already know what your student’s score from February (or whenever) ended up being, know how they’ve grown since then, and can easily envision a world where they tested in April and got a better score?
-
I have 2 children. Kiddo #2 is not at a SEES school. Kiddo #1 is. The younger one is just finishing Kinder and did not spend the year learning colors of the rainbow or counting to 10 or basic baby stuff. That said, we are in a dual language program, and 80% of instruction is in Spanish (she knew a few words going in, but was by no means fluent). That in and of itself has ensured she is adequately challenged (for example, learning vowel sounds was covered extensively in class, which might bore a child who can already read, but the fact that English and Spanish vowels make different sounds adds a whole layer of complexity). Ymmv in another type of program, but not being in SEES will not necessarily doom your child to a life of boredom.
-
A couple thoughts–they do spring testing to accommodate those who move into the district or missed the memo on RGCs entirely. Parents thinking as much as folks on here would not decline fall testing and the option of an actual offering to take a gamble on spring testing and assume their child would have the highest waitlist score, even if in hindsight it seems to make sense. So unlikely to see much, if any, movement as a result of spring testing. People don’t even know about spring testing unless they’ve just moved in and are disappointed to think they missed out on the option of SEES before even K. Also, (i) it is age adjusted and favors younger applicants in the testing stage but older age is a tie-breaker for equal scores after the others are exhausted; (ii) for later grades, I think under current contract they have to cap offers at 25 at K and then up the class size to 30 a few years later (not sure exactly what year). Finally, if looking at stats, would look only to current 2nd grade or lower –> current 4th&5th grade classes are an odd sort because Covid impacted things (which bled into but not to the extent 3rd grade [and 6th but 6th and above is totally different because at that point, ACs in play])– because of limited staffing as a result of COVID, current 5th grade at K only had 3 rounds offers total, not rolling waitlists — as a result (i) not all RGC classes were filled and (ii) kids that would have gotten into higher-scored schools with their scores almost any other year did not, and in some cases if had declined a previous offer were left with nothing, leading to more first/second grade offers than typical; current 4th grade had limited testers / limited acceptances because of COVID because people went private instead & also fewer rounds of offers, so in that case both had underfilled classes and lower-on-average scores than in past years for the K classes –> more than typical 1st/2nd grade offers.
-
They have very limited spots in spring. It’s not guaranteed there will be a space. From a friend’s experience they don’t add more like they do if fall testing gets full, you are just out of luck. You don’t get to pick your day and time. It just gets assigned. You don’t get a shot at all the seats just maybe waitlist spots if they exist. It’s not desirable. I think it’s good that people who didn’t have the privilege of knowing that testing was happening nearly a year before their child would start school still have a chance at something (I know someone in this position). They are at the bottom of all choice waitlists because those don’t reorder. Selective are the only waitlists they might have a prayer for and neighborhood is not a good option.
-
Hi everyone,
I just got off the phone with the OES and want to relay my findings with you all regarding the recent decision by CPS and the OES to open a late SEES testing date in April. Originally, it was clearly stated that the application deadlines and last date of testing were hard dates. Many of us intentionally chose specific dates to give our children the maximum time to learn and prepare. By opening an unannounced window in April two months later CPS has created an uneven playing field. At this age, two months of development is significant, I personally have seen it with my child, yet according to the rep I spoke with these students are taking the exact same test, and they did NOT change the test at all for the late testers. Even more frustrating is that she said the late testers can jump ahead of students already on the waitlist if their score is higher, effectively pushing down those who tested within the original deadline and potentially securing a spot that otherwise would have gone to a student who tested on time. Even more frustrating,the waitlist movement is currently paused specifically to wait for these late results. I was told that hopefully they will be ready by the end of May, but it’s not a guarantee. To be clear I am happy for the students who were afforded the opportunity to still test, but frustrated at the lack of transparency with this process, I’m sure that some parents would have elected to wait to place their application and test, even if there was a small chance they would have been able to test in April, we should have been made aware of the possibility to factor that into our timelines and decisions. It may be too late for this go round but for future testing please consider joining me in emailing the Office of Access and Enrollment and the Office of Equity and Strategy in asking for clarity on why this extra time was granted without notice and advocate for a equal opportunity process that is unfair for for all parents, and does not place parents who adhered to original deadlines at a disadvantage.
• Office of Access and Enrollment: gocps@cps.edu
• Office of Equity: equity@cps.eduPoints I will be making
• I called and spoke with the OAE and found out they essentially gave a 2-month extension using the same test. While parents who adhered to original deadlines were not aware there was even a chance for April testing
• It’s unfair to give late testers a developmental advantage of 60 extra days.
• Late testers shouldn’t be allowed to push down students who tested by the original deadline.
• Waitlist movement shouldn’t be frozen for people who missed the cutoff. -
I get the frustration, but this isn’t really an “uneven playing field.”
Round 1 families were competing for 25/ 50 seats from their preferred school. Late testers are competing for maybe 1–3 waitlist spots at any available school, if any even open. That’s not an advantage—that’s a significantly worse position.
Also, the test may be the same, but the bar is higher – they are older, so they need to answer more questions correctly. Late testers have to outperform students who already placed or are high on the waitlist. Two extra months doesn’t guarantee that.
Honestly, telling parents they can just test in spring instead of fall would be a terrible strategy—by then, there are barely any spots left.
I agree communication could have been clearer, but this doesn’t disadvantage those who tested on time. In general: Spring testing is for people who moved to the city or missed the deadline, not for parents who hope to prep their kids two extra months.
-
The scores are normed to a student’s age in years and months at the time of testing. Students who test later do not have an advantage over those who test earlier. A child who is 5 years old on their test date is given the same test as a 4.5-year-old, but must answer MORE QUESTIONS correctly to get the SAME SCORE as a younger student.
Kindergarten testing started in, what, October 2025? And it lasted through the beginning of February. That’s a 3-4 month window of time. If you apply your own logic to yourself, how many people did you disadvantage by testing when you did? If allowing people to test in April is so unfair, then surely you’re concerned about how unfair you have been to everyone who tested before you, right?
Not everyone who tested in the spring “missed” the deadline through some failing of their own. Their children could have been sick. THEY could have been sick. Maybe they just found out they’d be moving to Chicago. And on and on.
Not advertising spring testing with unconfirmed dates and limited availability is not a “lack of transparency”. The 27-28 application dates aren’t available right now. Is that a transparency issue? No, it’s not. Because the dates haven’t been set. And I’m sure that not only was it the case that the details for spring testing not been finalized in the fall, but it’s also an objectively worse option than testing in the initial window.
-
And just to add—put SEES aside for a moment: did you get a “choice” offer you’re happy with? That option essentially disappears with spring testing, since those seats are first come, first served and are typically gone by then.
-
You’re missing the point “age norming” does not account for the strategic disadvantage created by a shifting deadline of 60 days. In which time a could advance in such a manner that outpaces the change in scoring by needing to get more questions right. There is a difference in a planned testing window which everyone was made aware of, and a surprise testing date that parents who tested previously were not aware of. Every parent who applied on time had the same info and chose dates accordingly, whether they chose to test in October, or February, it was a decision made on the information available about HARD deadlines. Comparing that to an unannounced April testing window does not make sense. It’s not the same. Neither is unannounced dates for next year, as those dates WILL be announced and all parents will have the opportunity to meet those deadlines and choose their dates accordingly. I was specifically told on call that April testing was NOT for families who missed dates due to being sick or any other reason, but for families who had not applied in the first place because they were moving from out of town or simply did not know about the SEES process. I empathize with those families, but it remains unfair to the families that did know, who were on time, and who did meet the hard deadlines that were given. Given the choice, I would not have applied and would have taken the chance that there would have been a spring test.
-
Spring testing is not desirable. I know two people I know have gone through this process (one in the past one this year). You don’t get to choose your date or time as they are assigned IF there are still spaces available. I was much more concerned with what time of day my 4 year old was testing than which month given my 4 year old is sleepy at 1pm and the tests are age normed down to the month so the month doesn’t matter (again same test just different expectations).
People don’t all know about the application period. Why would you think you have to apply nearly a year in advance for K. That means you can’t sign up for choice options till the waitlists open and you are at the bottom of every choice waitlist so basically they are not getting a choice school. The person I know doesn’t have a good neighborhood school. The only chance they have is to maybe be eligible for the 1 or so seats available on a waitlist since the selective waitlists re-sort by score. I think it’s far more equitable that they are holding the waitlists until those people who didn’t know about the process or just moved etc. are able to be on the waitlists.
-
No I did not. But I would like to point out that I am not just advocating for myself but for all parents. Imagine a parent who strategized based on their date, and was waitlisted for their top school, and just enough seats opened up for them to get an offer, but someone who tested late was placed one spot ahead of them and got the last offer to go out in that tier. Thats just extremely unfair.
-
2 years back my neighbors kid had an advantage during spring testing. They scored 99.9 and 99.9 classical score (way high score in math to beat any tie breaker), very high gifted score as well and bumped all the others down in the waitlist. For kids growth every day counts. They are way more mature in spring than previous winter. At that point kids tend to know more, tend to have more focus and get more questions correct. Fair or not depends on if you have the offer vs you are on waitlist but we all have seen our kids and know it’s valid however you may norm it. I wouldn’t advise people to join the waitlist because every year spring testing kids score better and have higher chances of getting in.
-
With respect, that may not be desirable for YOU, but that is not the case for all the other parents going through this process. As I said I empathize with the families who moved, or just plain didn’t know, I was one of those families last year, and had to wait until this year. I disagree that it’s equitable.
-
This is my exact point. My child went from just being able to go through some sight words, to reading full sentences and children’s story books from February to April, from not really being able to add and subtract, to being able to to basic addition and subtraction. 60 days is a long time for development at this age and stage in education. The advantage of spring testing is clear, “age norming” does not close the gap here
-
A commenter below just relayed an experience where a neighbors child scored 99.9 in reading and 99.9 in math and knocked everyone down a spot on the waitlist, I would argue that this is a huge disadvantage for parents, if there was even a single spot open at that school, this late tester basically came in late and was able to take the spot that someone who tested on time would have otherwise been offered.
-
Like many other kids that tested back in October – February 🙂 by that time they would be required to read K level books to get 99.9, and not just full sentences:)
-
With respect, your comments reflect a profound misunderstanding of how norm-referenced scoring works.
-
sounds like it wasn’t offered to you last year. I don’t know if they had it last year or not. I know it was offered two years ago but the waitlists started rolling before the spring testers were added in that year. That shift from what was available when you were in this situation until now does seem unfair from year to year.
-
and as I said, that is the case here, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make
-
But your kid didn’t score as strongly as those other kids, so it wouldn’t have mattered. These kids didn’t skip the line through some unfair process, they just did really well on the test. I think what you’re implying is that two months of prep would have significantly changed results, which seems highly unlikely given the age norming others are referencing.
Everyone should probably take a deep breath. Our kids will do great.
-
Your explanation says
“A child who is 5 years old on their test date is given the same test as a 4.5-year-old, but must answer MORE QUESTIONS correctly to get the SAME SCORE as a younger student.”
So I’m not not sure how my comments reflect a profound misunderstanding, as everything I have stated regarding norm testing reflects the fact that a students advancement in 60 days can easily outpace the sliding scale of norm referenced scoring
-
I honestly have no idea if it was offered or not, by time I found out about the testing, it was past the deadline, so I waited until this year
-
“It’s not unfair when I think I’m out-strategizing others in selecting a test date, but it is unfair when a new date that I think would have suited my strategy better is unexpectedly made available after my student has already tested.” Do I have that right?
I would also argue that not everyone who applied on time had access to the same dates made available to them in the application. If you apply late, close to the deadline, a lot of dates and time slots have usually already been picked over. If you apply early, right when the application opens, often they only have dates through December. They add later dates throughout the application window as earlier dates fill up.
-
What other kids are you referencing? The late scores have not been updated yet. The process is unfair, we were given a deadline and adhered to it and it was essentially extended for late testers, that is at its foundation unfair. I disagree that it’s unlikely that it would have significantly changed results. but the point remains many parents would have not applied earlier if they knew there was a possibility of testing in April.
-
No you don’t have it right actually. I didn’t say or imply about out strategizing anyone, I’m sure every parent had their own strategy, whether it was to test as early as possibly, or to give their child more time and test later. I’m not arguing that one strategy is stronger than the next, I’m saying extending a deadline, and essentially taking that option away from parents who adhered to the deadline, were placed high on a waitlist with possibly JUST enough seats for their child to get another, just for them to pause the rolling waitlist because someone missed the deadline and is now given the opportunity to bump others down….is unfair, if you apply late…but still within the deadline window, it’s a given that you have to take what dates are available…because you applied late..but I’m betting if they applied late they’d have liked to know they possibly could have waited until April. It’s about equity and having the same options available as all others, that’s all
-
The degree to which a student’s development would need to outpace typical growth in order to meaningfully change their score in just 2-3 months is extraordinarily high. It would require a rate of cognitive growth (for Gifted) or academic learning (for Classical) that is essentially unprecedented.
Suggesting that a few additional months of development could “easily” shift a student’s standing on a norm-referenced scale reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how those scores work.
-
Agreed. If you have older kids, you can see the classical side play out in iready scores. If your kid is 99th percentile (or any percentile), the score needed to reach that percentile continues to increase, which makes sense.
I can only speak to the exact scores of my kids but have 20+ data points and while their percentiles have stayed entirely consistent, the score needed to get the same percentile obviously goes up. Their increases seem to follow the exact trajectory the test expects. There hasn’t been some miracle two month period.
-
Honestly I can’t fully reply to this because I don’t know the difference in the test, you speak as if you know specifically the questions asked to a child entering kindergarten and how many of them needed to be correct in order to achieve certain scores on the last scheduled date and the late testing date, so please enlighten us all.
I genuinely want to know because I searched up and down and could not find even a hint.
-
We’re clearly just going to have to agree to disagree that spring testing is in any way a desirable option (it’s not). But in this post, your core argument seems to be first-come-first-served: it’s unfair that someone who “missed” the initial deadline can potentially move ahead of initial applicants on a waitlist.
I personally can’t accept an argument that it’s equitable to deny access to families who missed the deadline or initial testing window. Deadlines themselves can be inequitable. They often disadvantage people with disabilities or caregiving responsibilities, and they don’t account for gaps in access- such as whether families are even aware of the application or have the resources to participate in the required testing, which may involve taking time off work and securing reliable transportation. From an equity standpoint, deadlines often create structural disadvantages that are in direct conflict with more “meritocracic” performance-based outcomes.
-
I just happen to have a background in education and assessment, so I am familiar with how norm-referenced scores work. This isn’t about knowing a specific test; it’s about understanding that 2 months of development can’t meaningfully boost a student’s score unless some kind of Flowers for Algernon thing is happening.
-
I can agree with that to an extent, but if that’s the case then they should just leave testing open up until last of the rolling waitlists are completed and all spots are full, why should someone who finds out late and tests in April be afforded the chance, but someone who finds out even later than them can’t test in May? What if someone got sick and couldn’t take it initially and got sick again on the day of April testing. Let anyone who didn’t have the chance to test, test, and be placed into the pool of rolling waitlists at the time. Offers continue to go out and as people test they are placed based on the current waitlist standings at that time. I think that would be at the very least more fair that freezing the waitlist and freezing offers until late testers scores are ready and then placed on the waitlist.
-
Thank you for giving this example. Hopefully this helps people understand better. There is no advantage to taking the test in the spring because it is an age-normed test. There is only a disadvantage as most spots have already been offered.
The only advantage I could see would be would be an extraordinary circumstance (a child had an extended illness, etc.) where a child wasn’t performing at a typical level for that reason. -
I am simply finding it hard to believe that an assessment for a pre-k student is so significantly different that there is no way for a pre-k student to outpace that assessment in two months, I would need to know examples, one month they have to name 5 sight words, the next month 10, or the next month they need to be able to perform reading comprehension? Identify colors? I’m not in education but my mother and my wife are, and I have witnessed the rapid growth of pre-k students in real time. Including my own child. To say that this assessment is that much more difficult in two months just seems unlikely to me
-
Someone previously mentioned iReady. They have norms tables available on their website. https://www.curriculumassociates.com/programs/i-ready-assessment/admin-resources/diagnostic
Let’s say a child (Grade K) gets a scale score of 403 for reading. Here is the percentile based on the time of year they took the assessment:
Fall = 96
Winter = 80
Spring = 54Those are not small differences over just a few months, so rapid development and growth is the baseline for just maintaining your percentile.
Let’s say I start the year in the 90th percentile (382). To move up to the 99th percentile by winter, I need a score of at least 465 (+83 points). Typical YEARLY growth is (I believe — I can’t find documentation to confirm this) 40-60 points.
-
Do you think CPS has the budget to leave testing open indefinitely or that it would be logistically feasible to schedule testing on a rolling basis with no pre-defined testing dates?
Also don’t IIT grad students staff a lot of the testing? Somehow I have a feeling their availability is different once IIT’s spring semester ends.
I mean ideally if you learn you’re moving to Chicago in May or June or July, there would still be options, but I can see what the barriers to offering that (from a practical standpoint) would be.
-
So….are non K entry tests age normed?
We moved here last August – too late to get into SEES for K. For this year, I chose a test date in December because that’s what worked with my work schedule, but now I’m wondering if I have missed the boat on some deeper strategizing that other parents are doing lol.
-
Yes. I asked OAE a few years ago and they said that they are (I inquired about the first grade tests). At the time they said the RGC test was normed by age to the month (eg 5 years 6 months) and the classical normed by grade level to where they are in the semester.
-
“I am simply finding it hard to believe that an assessment for a pre-k student is so significantly different that there is no way for a pre-k student to outpace that assessment in two months”
>>If I understand the testing properly, it is not that an older student receives a different test in any way. Everyone gets the same K entry test (though some go further with it than others). The age of the student at the time he/she takes the test is used to norm that student’s performance with national norms of students at the same age. So, if a child is 4 yrs and 6 months, that child’s performance would be compared to a similar cohort of student around the same age. The “around the same age” is where it gets murky for me. I’m unclear it is within the same month, quarter, six month band, etc. Probably better not to know, as this is where I would see the opportunity to game the system (test on last day before the age bumps to next quarter, etc.).
Also worth calling out that norming performance against only those students taking the CPS SEES exam would not make sense, which I understand is why CPS does NOT norm this way. The sample of students taking the test is very much not representative of the normal population, as parents are selecting their student for inclusion in the test sample.
Sees-testing– does this align with your understanding of the process?
-
This is basically my understanding of how it works.
-
-
They must be using a nationally formed validated test and there are not many of those. If it’s the COGAT, you can find the norm tables online. It’s normed by age bands of 3 months, but it starts at 5y 0months so that couldn’t be used for K testing
-
FWIW: “Age norms allow you to compare one student’s performance on the test with that of other students in the same age group.
The age norms for CogAT Form 7 extend from 4 years and 11 months to 21 years and 7 months. When Riverside Scoring Service scores CogAT, students are grouped by age in one-month intervals from 4 years and 11 months through 21 years and 7 months. When tests are hand scored, note that the CogAT Norms and Score Conversions Guide uses three-month intervals beginning with 5 years and 0 months and extending to 18+ years. Age groups are identified by the midpoint of the three-month span. For example, in age-normed tables in the CogAT Norms and Score Conversions Guide, the column headed 5-0 covers the age span of 4 years and 11 months, 5 years and 0 months, and 5 years and 1 month.”
If this is one of the tests they use, I highly doubt that hand-scoring is taking place, so I’d bet 1-month intervals are what is actually in play here.
-
-
I am not familiar with the selective elementary school process for cps but for the high school and academic center testing they over offer in initial rounds and spring testers bump the waitlist down. Minimal/no waitlist offers for selective enrollment even though they have much more seats that elementary grades.
-
CPS has provided Spring Testing for MANY years as a means for those who missed the Initial Application (“Round 1” in the old days) deadlines to try for any remaining seats AFTER first round offers were made. Some schools never dipped into waitlists so the only way for students to get offers to those programs would be to apply and test during the first round application cycle. In the past, if families missed the spring testing and late round application window, their only school option was their neighborhood program because it was not easy to add themselves to even a lottery (non-SEES) application after the late application deadline passed. Now with the more well-defined Rolling Waitlist process, families can join and remain on Choice (lottery based) schools until January and students who did either fall or spring SE testing can join to be on those waitlists until they expire after the 20th day of school.
So in short, spring testing has been around for years, but the waitlist process has changed over the years. Additionally, the initial application cycle has always been the best chance for a shot at any program.
-
