The College Board SAT site has for some time had a full practice test and a "question of the day" feature. They have recently added SAT Skills Insight http://sat.collegeboard.org/practice/sat-skills-insight

If you have already taken the SAT (for real, or a practice test at home) you specify your score on one of the sections and are given questions in various topics that are at your level. A document describing what students at various score levels need to study is at http://sat.collegeboard.org/SAT/public/pdf/SkillsInsight_WEB.pdf .

People disagree about whether students should prepare for tests used in talent searches. I favor at least some preparation and think Skills Insight could be a useful and interesting tool.

Yeah.... but....

1995 study by Onwuegbuzie & Seaman, “The Effect of Time Constraints and Statistics Test Anxiety on Test Performance in a Statistics Course, concluded: “Both low- and high-anxious students performed better… under the untimed condition… However, the benefit of the untimed examination was greater for high-anxious students than for low-anxious students.”


Pearson's examination of Timed assessment--2003

The tricky part is in the detail here-- HOW MUCH time? The problem is that the SAT uses time as a pressor in testing. Once you do that, you are now in a situation in which allowing time as an ACCOMMODATION can be used as unfair advantage. (Note that I don't say "is" an unfair advantage, because clearly it isn't for people who truly have disabling conditions which REQUIRE more time... but that it CAN be an unfair advantage, because the "fair" amount of extra time is that which produces "normative" time pressure... and the accommodations are not set up individually that way.)

This is specific to the assessment instrument-- to determine what "adequate time" looks like, and then to decide whether you WANT to shift that time so that it becomes a selection factor in testing.

Specifically (to the SAT, I mean):

Disabling the SAT


Now, am I glad that my DD's SAT results are unflagged? You bet I am. But she also doesn't get any extra time, and you had better believe that she could get a 780-800 on every one of those sections every time if time were NOT a factor. Let me also note, here, that allowing a particular accommodation to be "chosen" by anyone, but noted as "modified" (as the author suggests as a solution to flagging) doesn't really solve the problem, either.



Yeah, this is kind of a sore spot with me.

No, not because I'm thinking that students with disabilities are "getting unfair advantage." I know that THAT group is not...

but I also know that the unscrupulous TigerParents out there have made it INCREDIBLY arduous and stressful to actually get accommodations from College Board when they ARE needed. Which is what MoN was saying also, I think. I don't blame them, though, for viewing application for extended time with a certain degree of cynicism...

It's a matter of volume. They KNOW that some of the students applying for extra time are just seeking competitive advantage, not "a level playing field." And really, when the time IS part of the test, then what does a level playing field even MEAN??

Right. Your options are: a) no extra time, b) time-and-a-half, or c) double time. That's it. Nondisabled students (and those who can't muster the considerable resources to apply successfully for accommodations) are stuck with A. On the other hand, students who could legitimately use, say.... 20% more time get... hmmm... to choose from three different but not fair options, one of which is unfairly disadvantaged... but the other two of which offer ADVANTAGE over non-disabled peers by providing testing time which is MORE generous than necessary.

KWIM?

Heaven help you if you need to test with accommodations NOT on the "menu." College Board simply hasn't got a clue WHAT to do with such students. Their answer instead is mostly to REJECT those applications for not choosing a "valid" (meaning proscribed) accommodation.

Are you sure you wouldn't like extra time?

What? No! I just need to be seated in an accessible room and have extra time at breaks so that I can access the restroom.

Well, that's not one of the options. Do you mean that you'd like individual testing?

Aughhhhhhhh...

While that is not a real conversation, it sure COULD be, given our experience. My DD's actual written accommodations from CB require us to negotiate what she actually needs from the test site. Every.single.time. They don't even include the rather basic and obvious fact that she may NOT be seated for testing in a room that is used to prepare or consume food.


Gaaaaa!!!!

________________________________________

[/rant]


Ahem.

Yeah, I think that for most kids who qualify through talent searches, a few full-length practice tests to get used to the format and sheer stamina needed (at 8-14yo, that is DEFINITELY a factor with the SAT) are a good idea.

Beyond that, it's prepping. I disagree with prepping. Others don't.

There is a little point to doing a "few full-length practice tests" unless you look at what you missed and learn what you needed to know to answer the questions. That is "test preparation". Being realistic about your strengths and weaknesses and trying to fix the latter is an important skill not just for the SAT but for life.

I don't think that getting used to the test format and timing is truly "prepping". When middle kid took the SAT in 7th grade, she went through some practice problems and did one practice 25 minute CR section and one practice 25 minute math section (refused to look at writing). Eldest didn't want to take the ACT but I had signed her up. She did one practice test the week prior to the actual ACT - I think that is reasonable so that you know the test format and the timing of each section.

As for accommodations, I have mixed feelings. Most kids would do better given a bit more time. I have an issue with kids who are scoring 2000+ without extra time, then they get extra time and score 2300+. If you are already scoring 90th percentile or above, I don't see why you should get more time. However, I know some kids who truly need the accommodation (for valid physical reasons), and I have no issue with that.

My DS 14 qualified for the JHU~CTY Grand Ceremony last year with his SCAT & STB scores. Shockingly, he wanted to go get his medal. So we did. While there I talked to several other parents and all of them admitted to heavy prepping - tutors, SAT classes and whole regimens of practice tests.

My DS14 took one practice test to get familiar with the format and length. He scored a 670 on the math portion as a 7th grader. I'm certain that if I subjected him to a punishing SAT prep that he would have achieved near perfect scores. However, I thought the point was to get an accurate measure against other gifted kids. Ugh.

Having GAD is a major problem in taking tests. If your child has this, the best option is to consult with a psychologist/psychiatrist prior to taking the exam.

Bostonian, a "knowledge" test, I agree. On a "skills" basis, I also agree.

On an aptitude test, however, being used as a proxy for IQ, I disagree.

That is no different than "preparing" for the WISC.

If the test subject has been groomed, the instrument loses some of its validity with respect to that particular purpose.


For typical-age students taking the SAT for college admissions, different purpose. There, they are taking it to demonstrate aptitude for COLLEGE, not 'extraordinary ability relative to age-mates.'

Ergo, practice exams and remediation of any underlying gaps = fine for students who will soon be applying to college. This is a body of material and a set of skills that the most capable of those students SHOULD have mastered.

Different population when you look at talent searches. That's a demographic that inherently SHOULD be (mostly) naive with respect to the test vehicle.

Prepping means that they aren't. It also favors families from higher SES who can afford/invest in such preparation.

There's probably no clear dividing line on what constitutes "familiarizing" and what constitutes "coaching" here...

but I stand by my assertion that actively "prepping" a child for a talent search (or IQ test, or testing into a GT program) is ethically questionable.

Just to clarify, two students with comparable medical reasons are each entitled to appropriate accommodations, even if one is already scoring above the 90th percentile, correct?

I first read your post as indicating the opposite for the already high-scoring student -- that he should not be eligible for accommodation if already scoring 2000+ on SAT, for example.

How about a 7th grader who has already taken geometry "competing" on the SAT against a 7th grader who has not? Does the first have an unfair advantage?

Or the student who participates in AMC & similar math endeavors and is therefor exposed to problem solving strategies & practice that others are not? Unfair advantage?

Or the student whose classroom teacher includes SAT mini-drills as part of the regular curriculum... unfair?

If my child doesn't benefit from any of the above, yet curls up with a "test-prep" book of some sort, how is that any different?

I should clarify on the accommodations - if a student needs extra breaks to check blood sugar or needs extra time for a serious motor skill disability (knew a kid with a degenerative muscle issue), then I have no problem with that. If the kid gets extra time because they have an ADD diagnosis but they already can score 2000+ without that accommodation - then I have a problem with that.

Speed figures into a lot of things later in life. My eldest knows a kid who wants to be a surgeon. This kid had a valid reason for extra time (and still was probably not 90th percentile, even with it), but there are just some professions and colleges that are not suitable for someone who needs extra time.

No one gives my kids extra time to run to first base, because they are physically able to run there - it is just that they aren't that fast. Speed and agility class has helped them, just as SAT prep/practice might help a kid with test speed issues. We all have our limits and we need to recognize those limits. It can get to be a gray area as to which kid should qualify for accommodations, but there are some cases where it seems to provide an unfair advantage - especially since the SAT & ACT test scores are not flagged, so colleges don't know which kid benefited from extra time.

That's why I said that there's no clear line.

I'd argue that (for me, just my personal opinion) that the third of those is really the only one where I think things are edging into questionable territory.

Anything child-led is obviously not "prepping" in that sense, and the first two are not being done solely in service to elevation of test scores.

KWIM?

In theory a test is a random sampling of knowledge or skills that are representational of a broader base of skills and knowledge. If you are trained only on the mode of the test, the test is only reprentational of itself and the narrow range of skills it's squeezed into a multiple choice format. With no test prep, then various touchpoints within become representative of a broader base of knowledge.

Imagining a fairly linear set of knowledge in math with 100 concepts numbered 1 to 100. If only the even numbered concepts are testable with a multiple choice test, and you had no prep, then getting a question right on each of the even numbered concepts is a fair representation of your knowledge of the odd questions, too. If you only prep, then getting all the even numbered concepts right is Not representative of your knwoledge of the odd numbered ones.

If you study geometry before someone else, then the test is still fairly measuring your knowledge if that is the intent of the test. If the intent of the test is as an IQ proxy, then it could be a poor proxy if the only barrier to learning geometry early is a time or resource or school constraint.

In most normalizing studies I've read they remove people who have prepped from the study. Meaning in reality they aren't properly normalized. If the only intent of a test is to predict successful graduation with a four year degree, then prepping seems completely appropriate as any advantages they convey are likely representational of similar advantages a student would have while in college whether resources or heavily involved parents. But they should include those in their normalization studies.

Splitting a mighty fine hair there.

The teacher who provides on-going test-prep does not cross into questionable territory?

Or a parent who, aware of the SAT-related benefits, "strongly encourages" participation in MathCounts is fine... but a parent who borderline (or outright) requires membership is not?

This really is an interesting debate.

(I believe) my son is very mathematically capable... maybe even *gasp* gifted. But his G.A.S. factor is such that he'd rather not commit to any extra-curricular activities involving the subject. (When his school tried starting a math competition group of some sort, he adamantly opposed even investigating the idea.) As such, I do expect that he'll churn through a prep book or two in order to practice the types of problems he'll encounter on the SAT.

Sadly, there is a student at my son's old middle school who has no personal transportation available to take Geometry at the high school, and the district refuses to do anything other than offer an on-line alternative. In contrast, I re-worked my schedule so that I could take my son to the H.S., wait for him, and then take him back to the M.S. after Geometry. (Yeah, I'm that awesome.)

He didn't have to take Geometry and *might* have opted out if permitted. I did not allow that option, however, and required that he take the class. I did this because a.) I did not want him taking a year off from math, and b.) we already know that the i.s. on-line option does not work for us. Unfair advantage?

One group of questions on the SAT that flummoxed my son involved number theory & counting... which happened to be one of a few chapters his Algebra I teacher chose to skip entirely.

And how do you make that decision that 2000 is the dividing line between what matters and what doesn't for "speed"? What about a student who can score at the 50th percentile without their accommodation, but at the 60th with extended time? Why do you believe it is it ok to allow that? Isn't that similarly unfair to the students who score at the 50th percentile without a disability?

To be clear, I don't agree with you - I believe that a student who has ADHD and a recommendation for extra time from the dr who diagnosed ADHD has a right to that extended time, no matter what they can score without the extra time. Same for any other disability. The intent of accommodations is to allow a student with a disability to show their *full* knowledge and not be limited by the impact of their disability in showing it.

Honestly, I think the worries stated throughout this thread from people who believe that high income families can (and do) seek out ADHD etc diagnosis so they can apply for extended time for their students to have an advantage over others are a bit of an over-reaction. The reality is, to get accommodations on the ACT/SAT etc you have to meet a very specific set of rules - including having an up-to-date diagnosis from a qualified professional. I am not going to list out all the requirements, but if you haven't looked over them, you can take a peak at the requirements for the ACT here: http://www.actstudent.org/regist/disab/policy.html#clin

I do not have a child with ADHD, but I do have a 13 year old 2e student with a fine motor disability - he meets all the criteria for accommodations, has had accommodations for state and classroom testing in school for years, and yet I'm still worried he isn't going to have accommodations approved for the ACT/SAT (we're in the process of applying this fall). I think it's really easy to call "foul" when you are a parent who doesn't have a student needing accommodations simply because it's easy to imagine that other people will try to take advantage of the system. As a parent of a child who *does* need accommodations - I can assure you - it takes a lot of work to actually get accommodations approved. I don't worry about huge numbers of tiger parents trying to play the system - it would take a ton of work and there are checks and balances built in to try to prevent unwarranted requests from going through. SURE there are going to be some parents and students who fake a diagnosis to get an accommodation and sure some are going to slip through - but it's not something I see as large enough of an issue to be worrying over and getting upset about. No measurement system is going to be perfect. I personally feel it's far more important to provide an opportunity for students with disabilities to be able to take a test under conditions that allows them to show their knowledge than it is to put up gates so high that in keeping out the relatively small numbers of students who are faking a diagnosis students with a real need are kept out.

polarbear

But I think that then it becomes a question of what is truly "fair" in terms of making the test as accessible as it is to others who are non-disabled. It's not really barrier-free to anyone.

(To be clear, I also disagree with the idea that there is some "natural" score beyond which a student shouldn't get "extra" help. That is awfully close to "those gifted kids will be fine even without a teacher..." )

It's not the "fault" of students with disabilities that College Board (and unethical students who just WANT extra time) that the accommodations offered aren't individual (and seriously-- how the heck is THAT legally okay??)...

But Polarbear, relatively FEW students are able to "demonstrate full knowledge" on the SAT, and for quite a percentage of them, that is a matter of not having sufficient time.

If nondisabled students don't have the opportunity to demonstrate full knowledge/ability, then is it really okay to grant that to their disabled peers? There is some pretty distressing evidence that the kids GETTING accommodations are, by and large, those from super-zips and from the highest SES within their regions. Also true that the reason for the crackdown on "diagnoses more recent than 3y" is because of parents gaming the system. So clearly it IS a pretty significant problem.

My beef with that isn't that those unethical practices hurt my kid-- but that they hurt ALL kids with disabilities. Same principle as unethical dog lovers who call their purse rats "service" animals and drag them into grocery stores and restaurants so that they can keep them everywhere... it makes things that much harder for people who do need the supports. It's very arduous to get accommodations through ACT or ETS/College Board now, and I blame the specious and opportunistic with shady ethics for that. They are probably presenting barriers that prevent kids with lower SES and parental commitment from gaining proper accommodations when they are needed. That's sad.

Maybe the answer really is to make it untimed.

OK, I knew I should never have commented...

Let's use 1800 or 2200, doesn't really matter. I noted that there is a gray area, and I think that is what others are commenting on. I also noted that true physical disabilities should be accommodated.

Let's take the example of my eldest. She could use a little extra time on science tests (as well as the science portion of the ACT). She asked a science teacher about getting extra time and was told she needed an IEP. So I checked her PSI on the WISC - not spectacular but 94th percentile. Once I told her that she realized she just needed to deal with it. There are others in our community that would have sought out an ADD diagnosis (because if you have enough money you can pay for it). That is unfair.

It becomes a gray area when extra time boosts already good scores. What if someone conducted a study with all kids who scored 2000, gave all of them extra time and found that almost all of them (even those without accommodations) boosted their score? I understand that we don't really know until someone conducts a study but my eldest knows she would have done better on the science portion of the ACT if she had more time. I think HK commented that her kid would have perfect/near perfect scores if she had more time. What if we found that scores of accommodated and non-accommodated rose a similar amount? What would that mean?

I still want someone to give my kids extra time to run to first or maybe they can lower the volleyball net because my kids are vertically challenged. OK, not really, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I have also heard of bad outcomes where the kid had a great score on the SAT with extra time (and they used that time). They get to Elite U and they need twice as long to complete assignments - and they are being set up for a tough ride in college.

Thanks MON - you get what I am saying. I know you can't really draw a line and say Kid A has a true disability but Kid B does not when there are only minor differences between those two kids. While I'm sure the folks here are only pursuing truly needed accommodations, and I know that it can be very difficult to set that up with the College Board, money and connections make for a much easier path (whether it is for accommodations, making the cut on a sports team, etc.)

Well, what's the point of having high status if not to benefit your children? My wife and I don't care about luxuries. I helped my son prepare for the SAT using books from Amazon in the $20-or-less range, and such books are also available in public libraries. So my son's "unfair advantage" was having a father who is good at and likes math. Other children have parents with passions for sports, music, drama etc. and are advantaged in other ways.

Having your child score at a certain level on the SAT can give you and him confidence that he is ready to study advanced subjects, and education can make people more productive. So SAT preparation is not a zero-sum game.

High-end New York City preschools keep an eye on what the tests for public gifted and selective elementary schools cover. Even many parents who would never consciously prepare their children for IQ tests are teaching their little ones shapes, colors, letters, and numbers -- which probably helps on the WPPSI.

My son has extra time written into his IEP for use in tests but he has never used that. We have spent countless hours drilling him when he was younger with his math facts so that he could be "fast enough" (not the fastest, for sure) to be able to take tests with other kids and finish on time. Our other child doesn't have an IEP and has blown through the math facts in nothing flat.
I think it's foolish not to prepare for the ACT, SAT, etc. when they are taking it in high school for real. Like it or not, that is a major way colleges will admit (or reject) you.

I'm certainly not in favor of prepping for an IQ test, but I don't regard the SAT as a true ability/ IQ test. If you have terrible math teachers, you aren't going to do well on it. The verbal section is a little different, but again, if you haven't been taught well...(I admit, I don't really remember what this section is like, and I think it's been changed anyway). Writing, too.

I did not prep for the SAT in any way, and I probably should have (for the math portion). I was a very indifferent math student--I do mean indifferent, as in "frequently not paying attention" as well as "not very good"--and a little focused review would have done me some good. My parents did not believe in test prep at all and never suggested that we do anything to prepare. In my case and my other brother's case, it worked out fine anyway, though I could have done better on the math with some simple review. My other brother, who may have some slight LDs, could probably really have benefited from prepping, and it might have gone a long way towards helping him get past his lifelong feelings of inferiority, which later led to some bad choices.

Let me be crystal clear here-- my DD13 definitely "prepped" for the SAT. But it was nothing like what I know some of her peers (and their parents) have embarked upon, even so.

She took about 8 practice tests, and curled up with a couple of different practice books, studied how to write essays, etc. I have no problem with this. It was a total of maybe 35 hours, spread over a couple of months. And yes, when you add that up, figure in ~3hr for each practice test. It was a few Saturday + Sunday mornings.

On the other hand, she was taking it as a high school junior. NOT as a 7th grader participating in a talent search. If she had asked for a prep book as a 7th grader, I'd have given her one. But I wouldn't have gone through her practice tests and looked for patterns in what she was missing, etc...

I agree with HK - I see no problem with prepping for the SAT, and I expect my kids to prep (for SATs in HS, not 7th grade). Prepping boosts scores for most, unless you are like the kid I knew who got a 1600, one time testing, no prep (that is unusual though, even among PG kids).

There can be a difference in admissions at elite schools between the 2100 score and the 2250 score. Also, many merit scholarships are based on SATs (M+V). A score of 1400+ on the SAT or 32+ on the ACT will get you some nice merit. I know one kid that refused to retake the SATs, even though a M+V score just 20 points higher would have secured $8K more a year in scholarships. A little prep, $50 SAT fee and a Saturday morning would have saved his folks $32K.

Prep doesn't need to be fancy and expensive. $100 worth of books (one for CR, one for math, the College Board Blue Book and the ACT Red Book) resulted in a score boost and $20K/year in merit for my eldest.

Oh, I was skimming the thread. We're talking about prepping when using the SAT as a talent search? No, I wouldn't prep for that. Why?

My 10yo is proud of the score he earned as an 8yo, and the prospect of taking the SAT motivated him to study algebra when he was eight.
I will likely have my other children, who are not as precocious, take the SAT in 6th and/or 7th grade. The schools here do not identify children as gifted, but I would like them to form that self-concept based on their scores (and doing well in school).

The only preparation my dd did for testing for 7th grade talent search was to skim through a prep book for familiarity and review general test-taking strategies. I wanted the test to show her abilities and knowledge as they are, not what was "taught to the test." She got DYS-level scores without preparation, and had she had formal preparation I would have questioned the results. Especially since have a tendency to be in denial/underestimate her as it is. That being said, a number of parents I spoke to at the recognition ceremony had done a fair amount of test prep and multiple practice tests. Perhaps a bit more prep has made their results more indicative of their abilities as they are able to focus on the questions rather than the test itself. As for testing as a high school junior/senior, I think absolutely formal test prep is appropriate as that is for an entirely different purpose.