If there were more programs that aligned with children's abilities, I don't think the test prep programs would get as much business. But when the choice for parents of a child who would score 97% without prep and 99% with prep is curriculum geared to 50% (or even lower) or 99%, which is more damaging to that child?
Good warning in the ERB prep book but without enough learning environments for all children to flourish, it probably won't (and maybe even shouldn't) be heeded:
http://docs.erbtest.org/pdfs/WhattoExpectECAAOneToOne.pdf Artificially inflating your child�s performance in order to gain admission to your school of choice is a short-term strategy that can result in long-term negative consequences. Ultimately, your child will flourish in a learning environment that is best suited to his/her unique skills and abilities. If children are placed in an educational program that is misaligned with their abilities, they may experience poor academic performance, frustration, reduced self-esteem, and difficulty connecting with their peers.
From an outsider's perspective, it seems like New York parents of modest means are forced into a choice between the lesser of two evils.
