Private school testing for kindergarten?

[Anonymous]

I find this thread really interesting, and I think there is probably a fine line between formal "prepping" and what we all, as educated parents, do with our children everyday. My DS took the WPPSI a few weeks ago. I chose the tester in September from a list of recommended testers on the website for one of the schools we planned to apply to (didn't end up applying) and scheduled the test for December. I chose her because she was the cheapest (shrug). I didn't think a thing about the WPPSI again until the day before the test when I googled "what should I tell my child about the WPPSI," and I told DS that he would play with a nice lady and she would probably do some puzzles with him, play with some blocks, ask him about some words, etc. But I otherwise have very little understanding of what the WPPSI questions are actually like--would knowing multiplication tables really even help with the WPPSI? We, too, picked up those workbooks at Costco about a year ago, just because I knew my kid would enjoy them as he's obsessed with writing and recording everything. DS picks them up whenever he wants; I didn't put them in front of him daily for the two months before the test (to me that is more like "prepping" but again it's a fine line). DS had a blast with the WPPSI and scored in the 97th percentile. Maybe he would have been with the other 99th percentile kids on this board if I had "prepped" him.

[Anonymous]

I think there's a simple test: If you'd be comfortable disclosing in detail to the tester exactly what you'd done with your child, then it's probably not improper prepping. If you're hesitant about making that disclosure, then it might not be proper.

Dear Tester,

I spend 45 min/day with my average 6 year-old child (he has my undivided attention for this period of time) manipulating numbers, geometric shapes and puzzles, reading and writing. He is a fluent reader and is half way through the Harry Potter series. He mastered all arithmetic operations by the age of 4 and I am working with him with fractions and negative numbers now. We have worked with fun analogy type exercises and he now makes up his own. He loves BrainPop and has gone over the 3 to 4 minutes cartoon videos (over 400) twice over the last 4 years. The subject matter encompasses technology, health, science, literature, grammar, computer science and mathematics.

Signed Parent


Dear Parent;

Your child certainly has deep a wealth of general knowledge and exposure. He scored 99.9 percentile on the WPPSI but I feel it necessary to place an asterik (*) by this score since he was prepped and coached. I am quite sure this does not come as a surprise to you. In fact, you have prepped and coached him for our test since birth. Naturally, this gives your child an unfair advantage over others taking the test. The Association of Educational Psychologists views this practise with your child as cheating and unethical. Have you considered playing video games with your child or even lacrosse? This type of activity is not considered unethical or cheating and would not be construed as endowing your child with an unfair advantage in a video game contest or a lacrosse game with his peers. My professional duty as an educational psychologist requires I report to all the educational institutions your child is applying to this blatant case of cheating and prepping for the WPPSI. I would refrain from dedicating 45 min a day of your precious time in these activities. It matters not whether your child enjoys this. He will take other tests (some unforeseen) and he may run into the same ethical conundrum again.

Best wishes,

Tester
CC: Please send referrals my way

[Anonymous]

I had both my kids go through WPPSI testing without "prepping" (one did well, the other not, both got into a good school). I find the tests idiotic - they first and foremost test whehter a kid at age 4 is prepared to sit in a room for one hour wth a stranger and do whatever the stranger wants him to do. A money making machine for psychology consultants.

However, given how seriously some (fortuantely not all) schools take these tests, I can't blame parents if they prep their kids. I find the tests unethical, not the prepping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think there's a simple test: If you'd be comfortable disclosing in detail to the tester exactly what you'd done with your child, then it's probably not improper prepping. If you're hesitant about making that disclosure, then it might not be proper.

Dear Tester, ... [blah blah blah]

Sneer if you want, but the simple test I proposed is effective.

Would you be comfortable disclosing to the child psychologist that you had purchased some $800 prep booklet off ebay and drilled your child in timed exercises for 2 weeks prior to the WPPSI? Probably not, because it's improper.

By contrast, would you be comfortable disclosing that you read to your child every night and gave her a Melissa & Doug jigsaw puzzle for her birthday? Probably so, because that's just normal parenting. What if you even disclosed to the psych that you secretly hoped when showing your child the jigsaw puzzle that it might somehow encourage spatial reasoning that might help on the WPPSI? Again, I doubt many people would be too uncomfortable making such a disclosure, so probably not a problem.

My simple test isn't perfect, but I suspect it's pretty effective for normal parents hoping to make reasonable judgments about what's proper or not. It's basically the same test that religious parents have presented to their teenagers for decades ("Would you feel comfortable doing that if you knew god was watching you?") or that lawyers joke about with clients ("Don't write anything you wouldn't feel comfortable seeing attributed to you in the New York Times.").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sneer if you want, but the simple test I proposed is effective.

Would you be comfortable disclosing to the child psychologist that you had purchased some $800 prep booklet off ebay and drilled your child in timed exercises for 2 weeks prior to the WPPSI? Probably not, because it's improper.

By contrast, would you be comfortable disclosing that you read to your child every night and gave her a Melissa & Doug jigsaw puzzle for her birthday? Probably so, because that's just normal parenting. What if you even disclosed to the psych that you secretly hoped when showing your child the jigsaw puzzle that it might somehow encourage spatial reasoning that might help on the WPPSI? Again, I doubt many people would be too uncomfortable making such a disclosure, so probably not a problem.

My simple test isn't perfect, but I suspect it's pretty effective for normal parents hoping to make reasonable judgments about what's proper or not. It's basically the same test that religious parents have presented to their teenagers for decades ("Would you feel comfortable doing that if you knew god was watching you?") or that lawyers joke about with clients ("Don't write anything you wouldn't feel comfortable seeing attributed to you in the New York Times.").

PP: your "basic test" misses the point.

[Anonymous]

Dear Tester,

I spend 45 min/day with my average 6 year-old child (he has my undivided attention for this period of time) manipulating numbers, geometric shapes and puzzles, reading and writing. He is a fluent reader and is half way through the Harry Potter series. He mastered all arithmetic operations by the age of 4 and I am working with him with fractions and negative numbers now. We have worked with fun analogy type exercises and he now makes up his own. He loves BrainPop and has gone over the 3 to 4 minutes cartoon videos (over 400) twice over the last 4 years. The subject matter encompasses technology, health, science, literature, grammar, computer science and mathematics.

Signed Parent

Sounds more like an effective way to prepare ("prepping") a child for life and a deep, long and nurturing relationship with a parent than the other posters hung up on the short-term goals of WPSSI and a fat letter from Beauvoir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP: your "basic test" misses the point.

Perhaps. What's your point then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: your "basic test" misses the point.

Perhaps. What's your point then?

First come your obligations to your child.

Far later (if at all) come your obligations to the "integrity" of a pointless test that serves primarily to make money for psychology consultants.

[Anonymous]

First come your obligations to your child.

Far later (if at all) come your obligations to the "integrity" of a pointless test that serves primarily to make money for psychology consultants.

Indeed, a very difficult concept for certain folk to grasp. Prepping your child for life makes mundane screening tests like the WPSSI a stroll in the park. This has absolutely nothing to do with vacant and vacuous terms like "gifted" and "aptitude" or setting a child up for failure when he or she enters private school because of the proverbial * besides the WPSSI score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wppsi for entering k.
No prep, it is unethical and wrong, though you are "prepping" in the good sense if you engage in conversations with your kids, read to them, do puzzles for fun etc.
The schools themselves provide lists of test takers, though you can use whomever you want as long as they are licensed to give the test.

So preparing your child for the for test questions is "unethical".

But preparing your child for what would most likley be as similar as possible to test questions is "ethical". As long as you don't EXACTLY know. Just have a pretty good idea of it.

Strange dividing line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The wppsi for entering k.
No prep, it is unethical and wrong, though you are "prepping" in the good sense if you engage in conversations with your kids, read to them, do puzzles for fun etc.
The schools themselves provide lists of test takers, though you can use whomever you want as long as they are licensed to give the test.

"Prepping" for the WPPSI on the Potomac? Let me count the ways...

1 "prepping" in the good sense


2 "prepping" in the bad sense


3 "No prep" (it is unethical and wrong)

Is "parenting" like "prepping" good sense, bad sense or simply wrong and unethical?

[Anonymous]

I just want to make sure you all realize that the WPPSI and WISC tests were not developed for the purpose of private school admissions. The tests are designed to evaluate children for the purpose of understanding their strengths and weaknesses so that professionals can determine the best ways to help meet these childrens needs and provide any necessary accomodations or interventions. The majority of test takers aren't private school applicants. They are children that are struggling in one way or another and their parents and school have decided that an evaluation is warranted. The psychologists administering these tests are highly skilled in identifying learning disabilities, etc. and are a very important part of the support structure for struggling children. These psychologists actually have "real" jobs after admissions season is over.

This test is not pointless. The private schools are using the test for a purpose other than what it was designed for. I personally think the only reason a school should be using this test as part of their admissions is if that school's mission is to educate a specific population which can be identified by the test results like GT/LD, LD, gifted, or other types of educational special needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to make sure you all realize that the WPPSI and WISC tests were not developed for the purpose of private school admissions. The tests are designed to evaluate children for the purpose of understanding their strengths and weaknesses so that professionals can determine the best ways to help meet these childrens needs and provide any necessary accomodations or interventions. The majority of test takers aren't private school applicants. They are children that are struggling in one way or another and their parents and school have decided that an evaluation is warranted. The psychologists administering these tests are highly skilled in identifying learning disabilities, etc. and are a very important part of the support structure for struggling children. These psychologists actually have "real" jobs after admissions season is over.

This test is not pointless. The private schools are using the test for a purpose other than what it was designed for. I personally think the only reason a school should be using this test as part of their admissions is if that school's mission is to educate a specific population which can be identified by the test results like GT/LD, LD, gifted, or other types of educational special needs.

Agreed. Pointless for this specific purpose is the more accurate notion.

[Anonymous]

Three pages along, and I see no one has admitted to buying WPPSI test prep materials and sample tests.

I did! Three years ago, I bought materials from a vendor in New York City who supplies to psychologists. The whole package was closer to $1100, not $800. No kidding.

Then I ran DS through the paces about a month before the test date. He did great, 99%.

Fast forward four years, he is now at the very top of his class in all subjects except art and P.E. in a DC private. So he probably would have done very well without my prepping, I'm guessing. But maybe not, and I didn't feel like leaving that component to chance.

Also, I don't regret in the least what I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three pages along, and I see no one has admitted to buying WPPSI test prep materials and sample tests.

I did! Three years ago, I bought materials from a vendor in New York City who supplies to psychologists. The whole package was closer to $1100, not $800. No kidding.

Then I ran DS through the paces about a month before the test date. He did great, 99%.

Fast forward four years, he is now at the very top of his class in all subjects except art and P.E. in a DC private. So he probably would have done very well without my prepping, I'm guessing. But maybe not, and I didn't feel like leaving that component to chance.

Also, I don't regret in the least what I did.

Poor kid. Good brains, bad heart.