[quote=DeHe]
The other end of it is that the "99" kids may actually be 95 kids who were prepped. Heck, they may be less able than the 90 kids who were not prepped and who come from disadvantaged backgrounds for all we know. Test prep, as a whole, just totally changes the ballgame. We see some of that where I live just thankfully not the extent that is going on in NYC. Even the little bit we have here has messed with the GT id process and the GT programming as well, IMHO.
I guess that scenario happens although truthfully I don't get why. If you do a workbook with a kid and they can do it, doesn't that mean they can do that kind of work? Why is it prepping as opposed to learning? A kid who is not ready to read is not going to because you keep trying to teach him. Showing a kid a rhombus because it might show up on the test, they still have to remember what it was.
Okay, I'm talking about IQ tests here, so this may not be apples to apples. However, IQ tests are normed on a sample population that is, theoretically, not prepped on the material. Thus, the kids who are scoring in the 99th percentile, are scoring there without prep/pre-teaching/practice arranging blocks/repeating back strings of numbers/etc.
If you take a group of kids now and test them on the same material with a similar level of prep (none, hopefully), the kids who are similarly innately able to those 99th kids in the norming sample should test similarly. If you take a group of kids and prep them (teach them to the test) before giving it to them, it stands to reason that they will outscore the similarly able kids in the norming sample b/c they have been taught more before being given the test. They will, therefore, appear more able than they are IMHO b/c the test is designed to be administered under similar conditions to the norming sample and it is not.
