Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Recommended Resources SAT Skills Insight

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.