I have to agree with Grinity. While I think that it is appropriate to demand more challenging curriculum, and while I am aware that some of our kids aren't good test takers (DD11 can NOT seem to get the rhythm of test taking down and will sit on a problem in a timed test rather than skip it and come back), I have deep concerns about prepping kids for these kinds of tests. I don't think that they are equivalent to college entrance tests which are widely prepped for in a very open way. Several concerns:
First, it masks data in a way which will perpetuate the underidentification of kids who do not come from middle/upper middle class backgrounds. As well educated families artificially raise the scores of kids who are likely to already be advantaged in vocabulary and general exposure to content, it will become even harder to see the children with raw ability but disadvantaged backgrounds. I think part of the point of using a test like COGAT is to try and identify the kids who have achievement that is out of line with ability indicators.
Second, from a parent standpoint, it muddies the value of the test for those of us who are feeling our way through the "how-atypical-is-this?" puzzle. We can't all afford individual IQ testing, especially if we have multiple children. Aptitude measures and out of level testing are helpful to us, but only if our unprepared children are taking them along with other unprepared children. Prepping turns these tests into acheivement tests, since it ends up measuring how well a child has learned to interpret a taught problem type.
Third, I think that the end impact for children who would have very high scores without being prepped is that they look equivalent to children who actually don't have the same educational needs. This, it would seem to me, would lead to less rigor than needed in follow up programming.
All of that said, the crux of the problem is that too many districts use tests like COGAT as a stand alone gatekeeper. It should be one of several possible indicators, and should not be used to exclude children from educational options.
It is scary to have a child who does not shine until properly programmed for, because it creates a vicious cycle where lack of opportunity begets underachievement and underacheivement begets continued lack of opportunities. I get that in a big way. IMHO though, prepping invalidates the value of an aptitude instrument and makes it hard to make progress in moving schools to better meet the needs of gifted kids. Kids can be prepped to get better scores, but it won't make them more gifted. What it will do is create a misleading impression of what gifted is. Many educators have very limited knowledge or experience with giftedness. In part, these educators learn as they meet and work with kids who they are told are gifted. So what happens when they program for bright kids who they've been told are gifted and that programming works? How do they learn that what they are doing is inadequate for gifted learners?
Please note, I am not suggesting that a child is not gifted because a child has prepped for a test. I'm sure that there are both gifted and bright children who prep. My comments relate not to the impact or outcome for any single child, but to the potential danger when we look at it on a broader scale.
