EAS Practice Test 3

Giftedness is not the same thing as having mastered the curriculum, and it does not remove a student's right to instruction matched to his needs. In practice, gifted students are a group in which underachievement, anxiety and deliberate masking are common, partly because standing out socially is costly. Option C confuses "has paperwork" with "has needs," which excludes several categories of learner, and options A and D both treat identification as an endpoint when it is really a starting point for planning.

Written against NY201_OBJ_FINAL.pdf, Competency 0001(e): applying knowledge of the significance of giftedness to teaching and learning

Under the federal McKinney-Vento protections, a child experiencing homelessness is entitled to immediate enrolment without the documents that normally gate it, and to remaining in the school of origin when that serves the child. The designated district liaison exists to handle the resource side so the school does not have to solve housing itself. Option A applies exactly the paperwork barriers the law suspends, option C moves the child on an adult convenience rather than on his interest in continuity, and option D ignores that housing instability is one of the most reliable predictors of the attendance and performance problems the school will be asked to fix.

Written against McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.): immediate enrollment, school-of-origin continuity, district liaison

A student's home dialect is a legitimate, rule-governed variety of English, not an error to be eradicated, so the instructional goal is adding a register rather than replacing a language. Public correction of grammar during discussion teaches the class that these students' contributions are less welcome, and it suppresses the participation the teacher is trying to elicit. Option A pursues a real objective by a method that costs access, option B bans the child's home language from school entirely, and option D trades participation for a performance standard nobody has taught yet.

Written against NY201_OBJ_FINAL.pdf, Competency 0001(c): students from homes where a variant form of English is used

A period of listening before producing is common in second-language acquisition, and comprehension plus completed written work is evidence of learning rather than of a deficit. Referring for disability testing (option A) misreads a normal stage as pathology, and penalising participation (option B) punishes the student for a developmental phase. Option D draws the opposite error from the same thin evidence — absence of speech does not mean absence of need, and neither does it mean proficiency has been reached.

Written against NY201_OBJ_FINAL.pdf, Competency 0002: stages of second language acquisition and the preproduction period

Everyday conversational language is learned quickly because it is supported by context, gesture and repetition, while the language of a textbook passage is denser, less supported and full of abstract vocabulary — the two develop on different timelines. Treating playground fluency as evidence of academic readiness is the single most common way schools under-support ELL students. Option A blames motivation for what is a predictable developmental pattern, option C ignores that the student is already socially proficient and needs academic support rather than a reset, and option D throws away a valid signal instead of interpreting it correctly.

Written against NY201_OBJ_FINAL.pdf, Competency 0002: distinguishing social and academic English proficiency

The real distinction is what language is used to deliver content: bilingual programmes teach content through the home language alongside English development, whereas ESL instruction teaches English and makes content accessible within English. Option A flattens a substantive programme choice that affects how a child accesses every subject. Option C invents an age rule that does not exist, and option D inverts what bilingual education is — home-language instruction runs in parallel with English learning, not instead of it.

Written against NY201_OBJ_FINAL.pdf, Competency 0002: knowledge of programme models for English Language Learners

Least restrictive environment is a presumption, not a preference: the general classroom with supports is the starting point, and a more restrictive placement has to be justified by evidence that the supports there cannot work. Option A inverts the burden and would cost the student access to peers while waiting for improvement. Parent input is essential but the decision is the team's and must rest on the child's needs (option B), and option D leaves a legal obligation to the judgement of one adult who was not part of the decision.

Written against IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)): education with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate

Section 504 is a civil-rights guarantee of access: it levels the playing field with accommodations, and its definition of disability is broad. An IEP under IDEA is an instructional programme — it exists because the student needs specially designed teaching and related services, and it requires a formal eligibility determination plus measurable goals. Option A conflates two different legal instruments with different obligations, option C confuses breadth of coverage with strength of services, and option D is the harmful error: a 504 plan is fully enforceable on its own.

Written against Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794) and IDEA, compared

Academic integrity is handled through a published policy applied to the students actually involved, and the durable part of the response is teaching what the assignment was meant to demonstrate. Option A is disproportionate and, since it punishes without process, is unlikely to survive an appeal; option D penalises students who did nothing wrong and teaches that misconduct is everyone's problem to suffer for. Option C makes the standard depend on a student's record rather than on the act, which is exactly how integrity policies lose credibility.

Written against NY201_OBJ_FINAL.pdf, Competency 0004: ethical and professional responsibilities, fair and consistent application of policy

Hostility at a conference is usually fear about a child expressed badly, and the professional response is to lower the temperature without surrendering the substance: listen, name the specific concern, and move back to evidence about the student. Matching intensity (option A) converts a solvable disagreement into a confrontation, and walking out without explanation (option B) confirms the family's sense that the school is evading them. Agreeing to whatever is asked (option D) buys quiet now at the cost of a plan the school cannot deliver, which damages the relationship further later.

Written against NY201_OBJ_FINAL.pdf, Competency 0005: collaborating effectively with parents/guardians, including difficult conversations