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

Has anybody else here heard about this? I'm wondering how it turned out...

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/justin/index.shtml

It's a very sad story and one that has made people suspicious of many legitimate PG kids. The boy's mom used to post at another (now defunct) message board for parents of PG kids. She did some very unethical things and caused a lot of suffering. Last I heard, J was in foster care and doing better.

Deeply saddening. I think I have read about this somewhere, but not in so much detail. Besides being sad that report was a little scary on some level.
Lorel, what's your take? Was this a boy who was just not PG and the mom was maladjusted and pushed and fabricated?
Or is he really PG and shut down due to all the pressure?
It's troubling for sure.

I was most surprised by Linda Silverman's involvement.

I usually don't like to talk about other people's children. However, I will say that I "met" Elizabeth online several years ago, and that she appeared to be a typical PG parent. It was very shocking when all the news about fudging test scores came out. I do know that one mom in particular felt taken advantage of, who Elizabeth emailed privately. They exchanged information about their kids, and E used examples of the "real" PG boy to attempt to support her claim of how PG her son was.

I never met Justin, but I did read his web site. "The Justin Report", I think it was called. He talked about age discrimination and other issues.

I do think that Justin had to be pretty darned bright to memorize so many answers and to fool so many people. My thought is that he was/is gifted, but just how gifted, I could not say.

Is there any real evidence that the initial IQ tests were inaccurate or fake?
Obviously he could have refused to participate in the later test. Or perhaps he was too mentally distressed to "perform".
Either way, the article made it sound like he wanted out.
I think of that number as a measurement of what the child is capable of producing intellectually. There could be a variety of reasons the child would not perform academically as expected. That doesn't necessarily mean the first test (if not faked or course) was never accurate.
The whole story kind of freaked me out a little. Was she really doing nothing wrong and the child developed a tragic mental illness?

Was she the ultimate creator parent who took a special and unique boy and just pounded him to mold him into something she wanted until she literally broke him?
Is that really possible? I actually know a mom like that and she scares the c**p out of me.
I've started to actually fear for her children and this article kind of put a fine point on it.
And then you gotta think, what am I doing with my children? Not doing enough.....well, Terrence Tao states that talent can diminish if not nurtured..
Pushing them too much/too fast......also can harm.
It's pretty nerveracking to find a middle ground. I think I'd rather err on the side or not providing enough rather than pushing them to far.
How do you know if you are pushing rather than providing appropriate pace? It seems as if I have a good grip on that. Everyone seems happy around here. But didn't J also appear happy for the most part until right before he broke down?

Heavy stuff......

p.s. you are right, Lorel, we should not be discussing children. But I think the mom is fair game, especially because it seems she thrust both her and her child into the spotlight. If she hadn't I would have never heard of him or her and would not be discussing the issue at all.
I do feel okay discussing it in an attempt to use it as a cautionary tale. It may be callous to use J's pain in an attempt to make better decisions as parents in this arena. Hopefully we can look at it as a story to help parents proceed carefully when dealing with profound giftedness in children.

incog,

I completely know how you feel when you're in middle ground mode--it's constant re-evaluation, creative thought (double checking that you're neglecting needs and ways to address them). I try to plant ideas with my kids of possibilities, not that I necessarily would pursue, but so they give it thought and maybe figure out something they wanna do.

The whole story was very moving and I feel sorry for both mom & kid. Mom could have believed she was working her butt off to help him, against all the forces (how I feel sometimes). But I think a key message is to keep out of the limelight. Good reason for homeschooling. People don't like to think a kid is extremely smart, especially if they have very smart kids themselves (our counselor and our math teacher seem to always revert to talking about their kids for LONG times, even when we're in official meetings about my kid). I think it makes them want to bring you (me) and my kid "down to earth". Of the teachers & administrators I interact with, they prefer the "secret" smart kids...ones that always were good students, but didn't raise their hand and know everything in class, mom's never made waves or advocated for more or advanced stuff--then one day they take a big test and surprise everyone with amazing scores.

I feel I've actually put my son at a disadvantage in high school by advocating for him. Everyone labeled me "pushy mom" and thought of my kid as poor victim (of course he was the one who asked for help because everything was so "stupid").

OMG, thanks for responding cym. I was starting to feel a bit nuerotic as if I was in the minority worrying about this stuff.

Last year I did compel my daughter to tell the teacher herself she was having distress over not having enough to do.
I was so sick of being thought of as a hot house parent, I'm sure K teacher has convinced herself that I am....nother story.

Things did change with the school for the better after she did, though.

"I think it makes them want to bring you (me) and my kid "down to earth". Of the teachers & administrators I interact with, they prefer the "secret" smart kids...ones that always were good students, but didn't raise their hand and know everything in class, mom's never made waves or advocated for more or advanced stuff--then one day they take a big test and surprise everyone with amazing scores."

This is such a mis-guided attitude that concerns me not only for my kids but for other gt kids as well. Great for the child who had great coping skills and was able to sit there for how many years...... How many other children with different temperments with great potential tuned out and turned off.

((shaking head in frustration)))

My DH, for one!

And I spent my whole school career reading novels behind my schoolbooks and writing notes to boyfriends.

Not the best use of my time...

Well that is very reassuring because I definately think of you as someone who has it down pat. System working, running on autopilot it's going so smoothly.

Realistically, your children are at the age where if you would have pushed too far there would have already been a massive meltdown........And I don't mean normal teenage hormone stuff....I mean true breakdown.

So I always pay close attention when you're handing out advice. My kids are still young, I'll feel much better when they are happy healthy teenagers!

It think it's hard to tell from the article exactly what the dynamic between mother and child was, but I was really concerned about the idea that a well-known psychologist could be conned like that. If a kid was getting this astronomical score, wouldn't you start to wonder about the testing conditions--mother "interpreting" his answers--and the possibility that he had seen the answers to the SB-LM?

Hindsight is 20/20...though with these kids, I'm not sure *that's* even true! The "what if's" can make you certifiable! I think you have to get a pass on that one, Dottie!

My sniff test: Did I do the best I could under the circumstances I was given at the time? There's no point in worrying that you blew it when you find out new info that you didn't have back then. You can't react to what you don't know.

Did you do the best you could with what you knew at the time?

And, of course, the all-important 2-part question: were you acting in your child's best interests, and did you do a gut check from time to time to be sure it was about your kid and not about you?

I think everyone commenting can say yes to both parts of that 2-parter!

If the test was faked, I see how it could happen in a couple of different ways.

No matter how smart, well-adjusted, well meaning a person is...they are still human. People who take pride in their profession can get carried away, just like anyone else. It's the surfer chasing that perfect wave all around the world.
For my profession it was the elusive big whale, everyone wanted to land that massive multi-million dollar account.
I did see people get so caught up in the prospect of it they lost all reason. I admit to getting carried away a few times.
Here's this brilliant person who specializes in gifted psychology and children. Now comes along a little kid who looks like that perfect wave. Most specialists will never see a kid who is that smart. Sometimes we ignore that little voice inside telling us to pay attention because we are so invested in wanting it to be so.
Additionally, who would think someone would go to that extent to fulfil their own busted dreams through a child so young. It's maniacal! I would have never imagined that a person would do such a thing unless the idea of it was presented to me, as it was just recently. We still don't know if the mother did this, look I don't want to be unfair. For me,though, I could be looking at hard evidence that something like this happened, and I would still shake my head in disbelief. Simply because I don't want to think that it's possible.

we cross-posted Kriston....I love the sniff test, especially the part about checking yourself.
That is very reasonable.

I googled this today and found:

In a March 2002 interview, his mother admitted copying the SAT score report of a neighbor's son and attributing the perfect math and verbal scores to Justin, then 6. She also said she had checked out a copy of an old version of the IQ test from the library and studied it with her son before Silverman tested him.

from: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/33770

So, maybe he really was smart, but she definitely did a lot more than any of us here ever did, as far as being the "pushy mom."

By the way, I am a Super Lurker, so I apologize that I read every day and seldom post. I love to hear from all of you though.

Just by way of intro: I have a DD9 who is in DYS and a DS7 who is also highly gifted.

That's all I've got for now!

If I have a life-philosophy, it is this: regret is a wasted emotion.

Do the best you can, make the best choices you can make, apologize when you (inevitably) blow it, fix what you break, and move on. Kicking yourself after the fact is dumb. Accept that you have limitations. In everything you do, analyze, learn, apologize, but keep looking forward.

This view of life has saved me a lot of time and RE!

Welcome, cransaer! Happy to have you! Please join in anytime!

Scary artical, it makes us each reflect on how we advocate for our kids. It's natural to keep checking on ourselves. Look at how many of us are told the, just let them be kids, stop pushing, etc....Imagine though if you did nothing, I really doubt things would be better. I think as long as its about your children and not about yourself, you will most likly make the best choice. None of us are perfect, we will make mistakes, we will make changes along the way. But the goal for all of us (IMHO) is to have childern that can follow thier dreams, enjoy life,and live good and productive lives. As long as its not about us, I think we will choose ok.

Yeah, Edwin. I always dismissed that statement but I had to re-evaluate my dismissing it after I read that article today. So I did spend some time thinking about and then decided it was chuck-able.

And thanks Cransaer for finding that info and posting it. It does make me feel a whole lot better, although not for little J.


"(I hope none of that sounds cocky or anything!)"
so......NO!!!

And if I had a parent crush on anyone around here I would never admit it because I don't want to look like an e-stalker!!!!!!!!

Oh, I would! Heck, I've had crushes on people's moms!

I look like a nut, but not a scary nut, I don't think.

Right? Right!?

I'm a bit late on this discussion - lots of family stuff yesterday - but I feel compelled to say a word or two.

One of the things I appreciate most about this board is how open people are about their concerns, worries, and insecurities. You read that other people have insecurities that you recognize in yourself, and all of a sudden you think it can't be so awful.

When I read Incogneato's very nice statement about struggling to find the right middle ground I thought - that's exactly right! That's just how I feel! On the one hand, I want to provide a rich environment - one where the child has lots of opportunities to latch onto interesting things that really speak to them. (Perhaps all the more so in my case, since I feel that's one of the things my own childhood was lacking.) On the other hand, you want to know (as if you could ever really *know*] that it's opportunities you're providing and not obligations. And then finally you begin to wonder - when it comes to the inevitable power-dynamic that exists between a young child and a parent he or she admires and looks up to - whether there's really much of bright line difference between these anyway. When I read about the Chapman case all these insecurities came sweeping into play. Until you read the follow-up report - and learn that there was all this clearly over-the-line stuff about stealing test answers and such - the whole story is very scary. So thanks so much, Incogneato and others, for sharing the concerns that you have, and know that I, for one, recognize them very clearly.

But thanks too to Kriston and Dottie. Because I think there's an awful lot of good sense in trusting your experience and not second-guessing yourself. And it's a huge relief to have someone say that so clearly.

BB

Yes BBdad!!! What he said!!!!!

I have been thinking about this lately, too. I just read "Hothouse Kids". It seems that the author felt that she was hothoused as a child and is trying to come to terms with that. I think she is saying that what matters is the manner in which the parent is invested in the child.

The problem is that no matter what the parent's feelings, reasoning or intent, the child may interpret the experience quite differently. I know from talking about this with my own parents that what I interpreted as pressure was not intended to be pressure.

As a child, I felt that my parents were trying to "fix" my flaws rather than accepting me. As a parent, I understand that they were trying to help me overcome issues that I struggled with. Did they do the "right" thing? I'm not sure there is a right thing.

I projected my own perfectionism onto them--easy for an analytical perfectionist to do. I almost think we can't win as parents. We can try to balance on the knife edge of perfection but we can't know what our children's experience of our parenting (or their interpretation of their experience after the fact!) will be.

Yes, even two adults can interpret the same situation very differently.

Master of None:
I too!!!!

Well, I think it's something that the really good low SES schools have found - if you raise the bar, the kids rise to meet it. If you lower the bar, the kids lower themselves to meet it.

The kicker for me is, when to know when and how hard to push?

Coaching or prepping for IQ tests and/or falsifying test results, as mentioned in this post and in this article, is a red flag.

Reading through this I was saddened for Justin and his tortured soul of a mother who did what she did. It is almost as though she had Munchausen (sp?) by proxy syndrome.

At the same time I was reassured that I am not the only person that experiences the 'am I pushing or is she pulling?' Or the 'should I just leave her alone to be a kid or should I continue to try to ensure she is challenged?' self interrogations.

Indeed!

I also enjoyed reading such an old thread. Those people were the old guard when I joined, and I miss some of them a lot. (But I'm also really grateful for our current "old guard," who are also awesome!)

Yes, but fabricating test scores as the mother did is a bright red line not to cross.

Is this the most recent case of a fake PG child? It seems like an extremely rare phenomenon.

Agreed.

I can't even remotely identify with so much of her behavior-- even leading up TO that point. To the point that I have trouble identifying with ANY of it.

Pushing or hot housing a child is one thing (not unethical though not desirable). But, copying your neighbor's son's SAT scores and claiming them as your son's, emailing "experts" posing as your son etc are acts of a parent who is deranged and has lost perspective. I do think that this child is very gifted to be able to make so many presentations in conferences in front of so many "experts" and sound convincing enough to fool them all.
I remember Justin's story from a long time ago and never followed it up. Wondering if he is doing well now (he must be an adult by now?).

A very old thread that was bumped!

An extremely rare phenomenon, but also extremely potentially damaging to bright children who DO need something different.

I suspect that this case was merely the most extreme to date. Otherwise, if you think about all the test prep that goes into admissions for gifted schools, crafting a gifted child is a common phenomenon. Think about it: the kindergarten test prep industry in New York City is huge. Most of these people are probably faking up MG children, but I suspect that more people would fake HG+ if they could get away with it.

And let's not forget that everyone has to go to college and everyone has to be HG+ in many American high schools. This trend presumably leads many parental units to test prep, giftedness fakery, and all sorts of other educational malfeasance.

In reading the story in the Denver paper, I was surprised that so many people seem to have ignored so many bright red flags: his first college class was the same one his mother was taking, she was answering for him during an IQ test (?!?), a lot of his learning was done online (i.e., easy for mom to do the work), there was no test center listed on his SAT scores, etc. etc.

And an IQ of 298? On a Wechsler exam? How could anyone have taken that number seriously? How would you even test for it using the standard exams, which falter at scores way, way below 200? According to this table of IQ percentiles, an IQ of 202 is expected in one person in nearly 200 billion. I suspect that this number isn't accurate (otherwise, Marilyn vos Savant and Chris Langan being alive at the same time in this general area of our galaxy would be statistical impossibilities), but it gives an idea of how rare a score of 298 would be (unless there really are crazy smart Vulcans living in the 40 Eridani A star system, that is).

I agree WRT that particular case. (Even if he had turned out to be a super-genius, and she hadn't faked anything. Speaking engagements? Press interviews? College at age 6? WTF?) I was thinking more of the 2008 dicussion that resulted among members of this board.

The frustrating thing about someone who so publicly fakes this is how it affects the kids that are HG+. It's bad press and can set up a lot of skepticism in teachers, administrators and other parents.

That is such a sad story! That poor kid.

Okay, it's the extremely rare tip of a much larger, less extreme iceberg.

The score was from the Stanford Binet L-M -- see http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/justin/3.shtml .

Okay, wrong test, but the point still remains.

There is also the possibility that people hothouse high-MG into the HG+ category, as well. So perhaps the hothousing thing is a less pathological version of what Chapman's mother did.

But IMO, a serious side-effect of the problem is that IQ coaching can populate gifted programs with kids who aren't gifted and also skew perceptions of giftedness among teachers. They're told that the kids in the program tested as gifted, and it's reasonable for them to believe this. If many or most of the kids are very bright but not gifted, it makes things harder for the ones who really are gifted. And of course, all the prepping is presumably inflating the numbers of kids who qualify for these programs, forcing NYC schools to resort to lotteries and other methods of admitting kids, which, again, makes admissions that much harder for the kids who need the programs the most (and for whom the programs were ostensibly designed).

It seems incredibly cruel to the child to be pushed so aggressively. Why any parent would want to make their child look more gifted than they naturally are is a total mystery to me. The underlying message is, "You are unlovable just the way you are." That breaks my heart!

Now, on the finer point of "what is following a child's lead", I think there are many shades of gray. The tension between wanting to support your child's natural inclination for learning and trying not to have these interests crowd out simpler, more age-typical interests presents a real challenge. One the one hand, your child is ravenous for information. But, on the other hand, you know that your child needs exercise, free play, time to muck around outside, etc. In what instances do you say yes to the book/experiment/study, and in which ones do you insist on splashing around in puddles? Knowing what is in the best interests of your child can be difficult to gauge even for the most well-intentioned parents.

For instance, did my son wake up one day and say, "I want to watch the DARPA challenges"? No, but he has an innate fascination with robotics, and I had a hunch that the new generation of military humanoid robots would tickle his fancy. If he gets too hung up on talking about Petman and Atlas, I unilaterally decide we need a park break (acting out imaginary scenarios with the aforementioned robots as characters is copacetic in downtime.)

I had DS7 tested in a very competitive city with brutal competition for local gifted programs. His tester came very highly recommended by a natonal expert in gifted ed (who happens to be a neighbor). Anyway, when I had DS7 tested I knew nothing about the craziness surrounding gifted admissions. After his testing was done, the tester said to me, "Well it's clear that you didn't cheat!" (Something along those lines.) I didn't know what she was referencing. She then explained that she REGULARLY gets parents who have prepped their kids and cheat. I was shocked (and very naive!)

So very sad.

If you are in NYC, and the choices are
(1) get your 120-IQ child into the 130-IQ threshold public school gifted program with some preparation
(2) pay $40K annually for private school
(3) put your 120-IQ child in a public school where the average IQ is maybe 90

the appeal of option (1) is apparent. And even (2) may require preparation -- the elite private schools are both selective and expensive.

For me getting my kids tested was to answer a question and put my mind to rest. Prepping (aka cheating) would have prevented both.

I stand by my original comment.

To your NYC-specific example, you're presenting only a subset of options. Nowhere on your list are advocacy, moving to a district where the mean is closer to your child's ability, afterschooling, a less expensive private school, partial homeschooling, homeschooling, virtual schooling, alternative schools, starting a school, tutors, or teaching cooperatives.

A 120 student will probably find the class with truly 130+ students too challenging, and it is unfair to all involved to force children into molds where they don't belong or to dilute standards for those with legitimate gifted needs. Also, I'm troubled by the doublespeak such parents would be teaching their children--"cheating is wrong, with the exception of the multitude of parentally-approved situations where cheating has a materially positive effect on your lifestyle." It's not only unethical, it coveys a misplaced disapproval of the child at a fundamental level.

The real solution, of course, is to demand that schools offer meaningful ability grouping to all students, and for parents to lovingly accept their children as they are. I appreciate that this isn't as expedient as jumping the queue and is a long-term strategy.

To lend some credibility to my statement, we'll be doing a combination of homeschooling, virtual schooling, and starting a school with DS. Our public congregated gifted program is being mainstreamed, so we can no longer rely on our tax dollars actually benefiting our family directly, and local private options are a poor fit for gifties before middle school.

"mainstreamed"?

Whether preparation is "cheating" depends on the nature of the preparation. I'm not advocating bribing someone to get the test questions in advance. But I don't think buying a $10 book Testing for Kindergarten, which the publisher must have vetted for not revealing proprietary information, is cheating. I got the book out of curiosity and thought the activities mentioned were interesting. Actually, such books probably level the playing field -- you can bet the expensive NYC pre-schools are aware of the kindergarten entrance tests.

Reintegrated into the general education stream under a policy of "inclusion" of all special education students.

You forgot one more option:

(4) Leave.

Sorry Bostonian, I see your point about bad schools in big cities, but two wrongs don't make a right and all that. No one is forcing anyone who can afford expensive test prep to live in a city where the competition for the gifted program is insane and many of the regular schools have serious problems.

It's the selfish attitude that bugs me the most. "I'll coach my kid into an extra ten points because I don't want to leave Manhattan. Who cares about kids who actually are gifted and don't get into these programs because of my little snowflake and others like him? Too bad for them." If people were just buying a little $10 book, it wouldn't matter. But if that was all they were doing, the test prep industry there wouldn't even exist. And it's huge.

That all sounds a bit naive in the context of New York City. Good luck advocating for admission policy changes in a system this large that is highly politicized, racially split etc. (Sad fact: I was just reading that they have something on the order of 77k homeless kids in their system nowadays) Similarly its a non trivial process to move to a district that may or may not be better, lots of families have 2 working parents which rules out things like home schooling. Starting school is probably also beyond the capabilities of most people.

If you step back and think about it, we're talking about thousands of kids in this category. Having everyone go and try to work around the system is not going to scale. Personally, this
points out the need for a more systemic solution. (And I'm thankful for all the flaws in SPS that it functions better than
NY)

Oh, I see. You mean abolished.

FWIW, assuming mean=100, sd=15, the frequency of an IQ of 298 should be about one in twenty octodecillion= 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=2*10^{58}, which is more than the number of atoms in the solar system.

ETA: Correction
FWIW, assuming mean=100, sd=15, the frequency of an IQ of [at least] 298 should be about one in forty octodecillion= 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=4*10^{58}, which is more than the number of atoms in the solar system.

I should have calculated probability of being at least 16.2SD away on one side not both (so the previous calculation was probability of IQ>=298 or IQ<=-98).

on a slightly different note, Justin Chapman *appears* to have a facebook page now... and (if it really is him) is writing a book... https://www.facebook.com/JustinChapmanBoyGenius

So, smarter than pretty much everyone else in the known universe (Vulcans excepted).

DS will do a "reasoning test" - verbal, nonverbal and numerical reasoning, is about all I know - next term, as part of a pretest for a school he may go to. I had assumed we wouldn't do any prep... until we visited and heard the guy in charge of admissions talk. He casually assumed all the children would of course be very familiar with such tests, and contrasted that with the interview part of the process for which, he said, we shouldn't prepare our children beyond making sure they were happy to have a conversation with an unfamiliar adult.

So, DS is doing a bit of practice of NVR, that being his relative weakness. Seems a bit daft, since he's already about as good at it as I am and I'm... surely better at reasoning than most 11yos... but there you go. It's expected, and we want him to have the best chance, so we'll prep. (A little :-)

Don't be too quick to equate prep with cheating.

No, but at some point one does enter the shadows there, where the shades of grey start on the continuum toward "damn-the-torpedos-full-on-wrong-CHEATING-with-a-capital-C-and-liar-liar-pants-on-fire-claims" variety "helping" of one's children.

A ten dollar (Pound/Euro) book isn't it, but then... is a year's worth of an hour daily? Two hours daily? A dedicated two-week "bootcamp" that costs several thousand and comes with a money-back-gaurantee of "improved" scores? Coaching using old exams themselves? Non-standard proctoring?

It is a continuum.

I used to think that it was sufficient to say to myself that if a parent's CONSCIENCE were bothering him/her-- that is, if you found yourself asking the question of whether or not what you were doing was squicky-- then it was probably over the line. But I've since decided that that was hopelessly naive of me. There seem to be a lot of parents who honestly are pretty SHAMELESS about this, seeing no problem at all with things that I think are clearly unethical in the extreme. In fact, they rationalize that they "have no other choice" or that "everyone else does it" (they don't-- at least I don't think so)-- and that they are doing it for the child's own good (even when it certainly seems clear from an outside perspective that it is causing direct harm).

Are there really so many pathological people in the world? I have no idea, but I do know that a great many parents I know have zero problem doing things like WRITING their kids' college and scholarship essays, etc. I cannot even begin to imagine the mindset it takes to do that-- never mind THIS kind of chicanery.

It's as though they are living in a reality where ALL of JonLaw's posts are made completely seriously, not even remotely tongue-in-cheek. They truly seem to be playing some sort of Survivor game with their kids as pawns. If that doesn't make one's skin crawl, I don't know what might.

Well said.

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.

This was actually proposed in nyc - going to composite scores after the debacle with Pearson and so many 99s. This year had a different test and there were fewer 99s, still more than there were seats though. .

You would never know from this discussion that many nyc families happily go to their local district schools. Contrary to Bostonians choices - there are many excellent non g+t local schools. Which is why only 13, 000 of the 38,000 potential kindergarters took the test, sometimes that's because of failing schools, sometimes it's because of recognition the kid needs more, and still others do it because of the perception of the benefits and extras in the schools. In 2014 3400 got above a 97 but all those who got above 90% get placed in g+t but not always the one they want which is why many turn it down for local school after not getting the top schools. There are only five citywides, the equivalent of Stuyvesant for the elementary set - that is what the craziness is over. That there aren't more of those. And the same way that the making of more specialized high schools didn't dilute stuy or bx sciences reputation and desirability, no amount of additional seats will make these 5 elem school less coveted among a certain group. And there is a difference just like there is a difference at the high school level. But having more of them, particularly in the bronx and the outer reaches of the outer boroughs is what will improve opportunities and also lessen the racial imbalance in the specialized schools. But you don't hear that talk currently from the chancellor or the mayor. However, the debacle from Pearson really put testing and g&t on the radar for politicians. So it is possible that there will be more seats eventually, of course then you hear that there is no difference between a 99 and a 98, it just a bad day. Actually on the OLSAT and naglieri, it's actually a lot of questions wrong between 99 and 98 so it is a reasonable tool for determining if a 5 year old is going to be able to be grade skipped to 1st grade, because that's what the citywides are - globally accelerated programs, the regular g+t fills with high achieving kids but they are not accelerated just enriched so for the tiger parent the difference is crushing. But not all kids can handle the pace, and a lot of parents can't either.

Of course for the DYS kids, none of the nyc schools are great options, not the privates, not the publics. The kids are just too unique. But by virtue of the lottery, a DYS can easily get shut out, which makes the whole system laughable.

DeHe

What on earth makes you think that? I've seen an undergraduate computer science project do a pretty good job of programming how to solve Raven's, so I assume teaching children to do so would be, at the very least, no harder!

Steps onto soapbox.

People sometimes have this impression that IQ tests, or their favourite part of them, is uncoachable. I don't see how that could possibly be true. I can't think of any skill, mental or physical, that can't be improved by focused practice.

And once we're in a world where it is legitimate to have and use knowledge of what skills will be used to judge your child, i.e. some prep is allowed and there are no firm rules on how much, I think it's silly to see the parent who does most as "cheating", frankly. The rules are the rules and the parent's only duty in this context, besides following them, is to do the best for their child. The reason not to do ridiculous amounts of prep is that it might get your child into somewhere they'll have trouble keeping up. But I bet if the alternative to getting in were having the kid thrown to the wolves, no one of you would blame the parent for doing whatever prep was feasible. Sadly, to some combinations of children and schools, it feels as though the alternative isn't far off that.

I don't think you've ever had quite this in the US, but the grammar school/secondary modern divide still exists in a few parts of the UK. Children are tested (for a set of skills that are usually a good proxy for IQ) at 10 (in the 11+) and divided into schools on that basis. Parents love the grammar schools, but some of the secondary moderns, now called comprehensive but not really so, of course, are not places any of you would want to send your children. So there is an 11+ testing industry (see

http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/index.php

for a parent's eye view), tutoring for several years before the test is normal, and the grammar schools are stuffed full of middle class children. Does that system stink? Yes. But only the most blinkered parent of a rare HG+ child who'd ace the test without prep could blame the parents; for children with the ability the schools are actually aimed at, not preparing is foolish.

Stop thinking there's some magic way to sort children. There isn't.

Steps off soapbox

The 11+ isn't what DS is doing, incidentally.

About college essays: maybe there are places there that use them. The equivalent here is ignored for admissions decisions by the best universities, precisely because it is well known not to be an indicator of what the student can do.

Speyer is good for PG kids in NYC but it is expensive and Hunter has had success with PG kids. There was one that just graduated HS a couple of years ago that graduated Columbia at the same time in math and physics.
The lottery happened because of a lawsuit. And they do start with all the 99s first. But they do not differentiate between a 99 and a 99.5. Too many 99s on the tests they use for the slots available. And then because some 99s didn't get into the accelerate programs, because of lottery, like DD, there was another lawsuit and no public school could accelerate the program.
I am now trying to work with Toronto school board. Though by the time they change, DD will be gone. But they they need to differentiate and make accelerated, enriched and general curriculums. DD wonders why so many of her classmates are considered gifted after being in NYC where all her classmates scored at least in the 99th percentile. Even if it was the OLSAT.

In general, test prep for ACHIEVEMENT tests is broadly considered ethical as "learning the material" and we see many schools "teaching to the test".

Meanwhile, test prep for IQ tests is broadly considered unethical as gaming the system or cheating, yet is also widespread. This may explain why many schools do not accept outside test results but rather utilize tests which they may believe have not been "leaked", results which not been frankenstiened or superscored, and subtests which have not been selected after-the-fact for having the highest scores. This may also explain why some schools administer multiple tests and look for consistency among the results.

In the case at hand for the thread topic, links in previous posts indicate that the parent mis-represented another student's ACHIEVEMENT test scores as her sons, and purchased a copy of the IQ test to cheat.

Please consider that this is an artificial limit. As long as there are enough buildings, seats, and teachers, there is no actual limit to the number of those buildings, seats, and teachers which can be dedicated to gifted education and/or some form of advanced academics.

As Colinsmum suggests, Ravens is totally teachable. Do a Google Image search for "raven matrices" and practice a few of them, and see if you don't get better right quick.

The so-called ability tests have never claimed to be unteachable. This is precisely why they are so uptight about their materials not being leaked. They rely on the fiction that the problems they use are entirely novel to all students.

Pretty much sums my thoughts up.

DD, for example, who was +3y accelerated, easily topped the ranges reported by TIP for agemates on not only the ACT but also the SAT.

But then again, she had an advantage that many of those 12-13yo students do not have-- she was a high school junior, see.

I also wanted to underscore Bostonian's point that the ability to BENEFIT substantially from test prep is itself a g-loaded activity. This is how I view Amy Chua's memoirs, as well-- that is, sure, she was a helicopter parent from hell, but even so, her kids wouldn't have been experiencing the LEVEL of success that they have achieved without being gifted to begin with. KWIM?

That doesn't make such pressured parenting right in a moral sense, I think; but it does explain that there still isn't really any secret sauce for "creating" a HG+ child. Not starting from a NT one, anyway-- and even starting from a MG one, there is a viciously high price to be paid for doing this kind of thing.

As for this particular instance, yeah-- that is WAY beyond the pale.

I'm not sure I accept the argument that prepping is g-loaded and therefore it's okay. That's just another way of justifying coaching your kid into scoring an extra ten points on the test so he can qualify for Hunter or wherever. IMO, this practice is particularly egregious when the testing is for entering kindergartners. HG+ kids can learn K and 1st grade level skills through osmosis before they start school. These kids really, truly need something different. Justifying prep as a means of entry is similar to the idea that placing everyone into algebra in 8th grade will help get them ready for college (with the predictable result that algebra gets watered down). Both ideas are simply wrong.

Hyper-prepping non-gifted kids up to the cutoff just makes it harder for truly gifted kids to get what they NEED. Do the non-GT kids benefit from the programs? Probably. But at what cost to the kids who met the cutoff but got cut out because of the lottery? And what's the cost to the gifted kids who got lucky in the lottery, but are now in a "gifted" classroom where prepping has depressed the average IQ?

Yeah, I know that gifted but-low-SES kids may not have the same osmosis advantage due to environment, but they're not the ones with personal tutors. If anything, the personal tutor crowd just makes things even harder for the gifted low SES kids.

Somewhat against the point I made earlier, and in favour of "ability to benefit from test prep is itself g loaded" anyone who didn't follow The Perfect Score Project the first time round might like to read up on it:
http://perfectscoreproject.com/about-the-perfect-score-project-2/
This professionally competent woman devoted a year, essentially, to prepping to a perfect SAT score. I assumed she'd do it, and I think she assumed she'd do it. She didn't; her maths scores moved remarkably little. Tbh I still can't really absorb this, and tend to wish I'd had the chance to prep her myself!

Obviously BUYING an IQ test to "prep" a kid is unethical. But I'm not sure one can really stop people from training their kid in this style of test. And I am sure it would work to some extent.

Personally I don't see what the point of prepping for IQ tests, tests for giftedness and/or IQ Tests, and the end of year state tests. My son just went through a full battery of tests (neuro psyc testing) and the only thing I did was talk to him about taking the tests serious. (I don't have the results for another few weeks.) How would this information be useful if I prepped him. I have a hard enough time convincing people that my son hasn't been heavily tutored. My school used the OLSAT for testing into GATE and while the party line at the district is you can't prep for it. I know some parents who tried, although I don't know how or if it was successful.

I can see why people try if it takes a 99% to be put in a lottery to get into the gifted magnets in NYC? My district it used to be 95% but it seems as if they have gone to a new test this year. My son got a 99% but I don't think this was very common even among other kids in his gifted class.

On the other hand I will definitely prep my son for the SAT/PSAT although we will not do the whole summer long 4 hours a day +homework type of prep. Ironically the "top" kids are the ones that do the most prep for this test. I assume he will do well even without prep but there are tricks to how to take these test. Most of the other kids in our area get so much prep that it would be a disadvantage to not even crack open a SAT prep book even for a very gifted kid.

Just curious, do you know the actual numbers? On her website she claims her overall score increased a lot, but she doesn't break it down.

Testing doesn't just test ABILITY with the material, though-- that's the missing link there. There's no way to modify one's base processing speed or working memory; that's how I explain it.

DD and I neither one are capable of a perfect 800 on the SAT-M. DH is.

On any given day, though, she and I both can do it on the verbal sections. I'm not convinced that this is entirely the result of better verbal skills as compared with math ability, either-- (it's just a matter of the test itself being a hostile environment for doing rapid calculations extremely accurately for us), and not impacting our verbal abilities negatively in the same manner.

Unlimited time and ideal conditions DO result in perfect 800's for her and me both, for whatever that is worth. But that isn't what the SAT is like when you actually TAKE it.

It's grossly unfair, but someone who has a better working memory than I do, or simply doesn't make the stupid arithmetic errors under pressure-- can outscore me every time. {shrug} It is what it is. It doesn't mean anything at all about my math ability, by the way-- I certainly mastered math through trig and well beyond.

Anyway-- that's my explanation for why her scores didn't budge much. You can only move them so as to optimize them for your own innate limitations within the test format. For a lucky few, their understanding and approach are the limiting factors. For the rest of us, we'll eventually reach a point of diminishing returns re: prepping.

Ah, there used to be an overall graph page, but it's gone. Piecing together, maths scores were:

Jan 510
Mar 530
May 530
June 570
Oct 560
Nov 540

I must have missed one, as she says she took it seven times, but you get the picture.

And this is part of the reason why these kids who take the top elite test prep classes, don't actually budge their scores as much as they would like. They do a bit but after a certain point spending more times on prep doesn't seem to help much. Certainly not in proportion to the amount of time they spend. The classes I'm thinking of you have to get a certain score on a pre-test just to be enrolled.

I don't think I would be able to get an perfect score on the SAT either. I would make too many silly mistakes, too much time pressure. And I think my son will be like that. My DH didn't but I think he just didn't really try, his first try was good enough to get him into "top rated" unviversity so why bother. (SAT prep and scores weren't as crazy then.) He I bet he could have since he did get a perfect score on the GRE.

On the other hand, I notice that her web page has a whole lot about room conditions and snacks and comparing prep companies, and not much about . . . actually learning math. While I agree that the ability to benefit from prep is probably g-loaded, I bet it is even way more g-loaded when the person is allowed to be in charge of their own prep. I too would like to see what ColinsMum could have done with her.

Agreed! How hard is it (I say rhetorically) to master trigonometry at the level of the SAT?

Hmmm. I was going to do zero prep for DD's upcoming test but maybe I maybe I should do something...

My opinion is you probably should do something, although something could be as little as buying a book or checking out the SAT's own web-site. So she can read a few tips and work through at least one sample test so she knows what to expect. Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. There are tricks to the SAT that are different from other multiple choice tests.

Sorry, I should have clarified since the discussion has turned toward SAT from K admission test. My DD is going through admission process this fall for a private K-12 school and their cutoff is around 92%ile to 95%ile, depending on the year. They give an abbreviated of standard IQ test. Maybe I should be panicking since I know many children who are applying have been going to a test prep center since age 2 as well as working with a tutor but I didn't want to go down that road. I didn't want test prep to define her childhood.

I don't think I can make DD "smarter" in the next few months. So in that sense, there isn't much point in prepping her but I'm not sure if getting her a workbook like this would be too close to cheating for my own comfort level:

http://www.amazon.com/Gifted-Talent...=8-5&keywords=test+prep++gifted+talented

ETA: We're also applying to an academic hothousing school that gives IQ and achievement test. I think DD would get in there. The other school also looks more into her social skills and other global readiness and she'd be one of the youngest girls for the application pool. That is why I think she has to ace the IQ test so they'd have a reason to overlook her quirkiness and immaturity. She can be charming and endearing if she wants to but it comes and goes.

No I wouldn't prep for an IQ test. (And didn't my DS15 just took one last week.) I was talking about the SAT. SAT is an achievement test, I would prep for that. Some kids here take the SAT in junior high to qualify for different "gifted" programs so I wasn't sure.

Edited to add, I just looked at the link and that makes me sad. My attitude to the preschool years is let them play, and it's frustrating to see people put their preschoolers through this stress. Even the one "gifted" school is my area doesn't require an sort of testing for their K program, just an interview. (I should say didn't don't know if it changed.)

One more thing what I might do with a preschool kid is have them practice their social skills. Tests for preschool/K are usually given one-on-one. And this can hurt a bright but shy/introverted child.

Thanks bluemagic.

There is one private school near us that does not do IQ testing. Instead, they screen parents for their SES, which just rubs me the wrong way and really makes SO angry so we never applied.

I don't mind that these schools screen kids by IQ but I do mind that so many families participate in the test prep madness. That puts the rest of us between a rock and a hard place. Looking at the prep materials available on amazon, I personally feel that is getting close to cheating but there are children who go to a prep center 3 days a week to study using such materials with a professional coach and I don't know if I'd be hurting DD's chance if I did nothing.

I think at the end of the day, I have to believe that the school knows what they are doing and if they think the school and DD are a good match, they'd offer her a spot.

DD's social skills with adults and age-peers are pretty good but compared to other precocious children who are 11 months older, she looks rather immature, which does put her at a disadvantage during the group interview part.

We did the critical thinking series because DS liked workbooks and playing school. It wasn't prepping in my mind as it was not geared toward the tests. Plus, the logic puzzles were interesting to DS. However what was prepping in my mind was sitting down and working. But we knew people who prepped the experience, basically getting the kid comfortable with going to a tester and answering questions. Not all kids will do it. But what I did do overtly was do a version of princeton review for my 4.5 year old - I taught him to look at all the answers before making a choice and if there were two close answers to try to figure out the difference between the two. We did that for OLSAT and bracken (he was before the switch to NNAT in nyc) and we looked at the sample test the nyc doe provides. Some argue that the posting of the sample means that preparing is recommended and encouraged, as opposed to iq tests.

DeHe

How do they do that? If you mean that they don't offer financial aid, it could just be that they don't have extra funds available.

This is all second-hand info so I'm not sure how much of that is true but what I hear is that they ask if one of the parents (and they really mean the mother) is available to volunteer in the classroom on a consistent basis. We live in a city where the cost of living is outrageously high so this is only possible if the breadwinner makes over $150,000 unless one wants to live on bread and water.

The interview process really focuses on the parents rather than the child. They want to know what kind of life style you have and ask questions to sort out who comes from old money. Again, second-hand story but a friend w/ a Ph.D in physics who is married to a MD tried out for this school and their PG+ child was rejected, not even wait-listed. Both parents went to public schools until college and made it on their own without much help from their middle-class parents. They live in a very exclusive residential area but they do not belong to a selective country club or own a cabin in Chamonix. The school is definitely looking for a certain type of family.

They offer generous financial aid and they do take a handful of children whose parents cannot afford to pay $21,000+ tuition so we could have gotten in as one of their FA cases* but I don't think we'd have felt very comfortable in this community.

* If we had applied and she was accepted, that is. SO most likely would have said something really abrasive to put them off.

One of the reasons I rejected the only "gifted" private school in my area when my son was entering K, is because what I was hearing from other parents was that it was really a school for rich parents who thought their kids were gifted.

And that supposedly if I could hold our horses, and suffer through public school K-3. Our local elementary had the BEST gifted program around for 4-6th, not that that program ended out working that well for my DS in the end.

In many ways, I think that describes many "gifted" private schools across the country including the ones we're applying to, unfortunately. I'd prefer to homeschool or start a coop but DD is adamant that she wants to go to school where she can eat lunch everyday with her friends.