Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Old news that's new to me: Justin Chapman

Practically, yes. But in edu-speak this comes with differentiation. Lots of sweet, glorious differentiation.

Ah, Splendiferous Splendifferentiation! Who could possibly ask for more?

WRT to the NYC exams... I am old enough to remember the SAT and CB folks claiming that their exams were ungamable... this would have been in the late 80's/ early 90's before the infamous renorming.

My view of all these standardised tests is colored by this. For me there are only two possibilities. Either your tests are unbiased and meaningful and any prep is worthless... or whatever you are testing is arbitrary and I would be naive not to prep. You can't have it both ways.

Test like Raven's and the paper folding etc subtests of SB-LM are ungamabele... but people seem to prefer more modern culturally biased tests... If you want gifted programs to use these weird hybrid iq/achievement tests like sages or cogat or even some modern verbally biased iq tests then you can't be outraged when people prep for them.

My experience, personally and as a parent is that gifted individuals will generally, absent 2e issues, still test in the top 2% even on these flawed instruments.

I don't think anyone here has been advocating for the use of these tests (though we've had threads that are very critical of them, and the people who publish the tests say that [i]don't[/i] measure IQ).


You may have missed a major point of this thread, which is that in a place like New York, where there are more students passing the tests than there are slots in gifted programs, being in the top 2% (or even 1%) is no guarantee of admission. They don't admit the highest scores first and work their way down. They have lotteries.

Yes, the schools need more slots, or a meaningful way to address the needs of all the students. But a failing of the schools doesn't justify a multimillion dollar kindergarten test prep industry that makes the problem worse.

Agreed! A similar topic was discussed on a thread here.

I disagree. My eldest son at age 8 got a 700 on the math SAT in part because he was "prepped" -- he had worked through Singapore Math and EPGY through Beginning Algebra and taken the math section of two practice SATs. But for almost all 8yo's, including my younger two, SAT math "prep" would be an exercise in utter frustration. My current 8yo dabbles with algebra but keeps thinking that 5x^2 really means 25x^2 -- and that's OK.

In short, the ability to benefit from test prep is itself g-loaded.

What some people call gaming the test, or test prep (for achievement-type tests like the SAT/ACT), others call learning the material. Other than the SAT writing, which really can be gamed by babbling, most of the others discriminate against poor test takers, but can't really generate significantly inflated scores unless you actually cheat.

I believe you're confusing naïveté and morality. Unethical behaviour is unethical irrespective of whether it takes place in a small town or large city. And yes, I would consider anything beyond cursory test prep (e.g. buying a book to familiarize the child briefly with the general format of the test, maybe taking a practice test or two) to be gaming the system. People with the economic means and inclination are buying external, intensive resources to favour their children. Those hurt most by this type of behaviour are low income, high-ability students, and it artificially perpetuates their disadvantage in accessing training commensurate with their abilities.

Now, when the super-prep-doping-tests are introduced, then of course any and all prep will be justified, and everyone's child will get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court discount at the movies.

Agree. I think acceleration in of itself can be considered 'prep' for achievement tests like Explore, since ultimately accelerated kids are the ones likely to ace Explore at an age that matters. And yes the ability to benefit from such 'prep' is g-loaded.

Prepping for an IQ test though, I think, is really crazy since the results will be meaningless. I don't think Justin Chapman's mom had any good excuse for what she did which was simply cheating and teaching her child to cheat.

I hate lotteries. If there are limited places they should list the scores in order and draw a line under the number of places available.