Another perspective on “prepping” from a lower income mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Are you sure that’s the ‘idea’ of the IQ test? Please at least read the Wikipedia article on it before embarrassing yourself further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another single mom here—didn’t prep b/c I didn’t know about the test, but I would have if I’d known. That being said, it doesn’t matter either way. Wealthy, educated families are have such an extraordinary advantage that one little workbook isn’t going to make a whit of difference. Asians are the only group who have managed to break out thanks to cultural norms that emphasize education above all else. Good luck.

Giftedness and emphasis on academics and education are a middle class value, not a wealthy family value.

Maybe wealthy WASPS but not wealthy Jews or wealthy Asians. We know that the world can turn against you in a second and no matter how wealthy, money will not protect you. The one thing they cannot take is your knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree. We used a work book for DS, it did not do much, but it was prepping. His scores didn’t change from the NNAT to the CogAT (both were in pool). We didn’t do much with the work book, we had him do a practice test. Is it cheating? Sure. Did it make any real difference? Who knows, maybe his CogAT score would have been lower. In the end, his GBRSs were excellent and those matter more then the test scores.

If someone said we cheated I would agree. We did more to prepare him for a proxy IQ exam then other kids in the class.

I wouldn’t prep him for a WiSC because those are used as a diagnostic test as well as an IQ test. He will prep for the SAT/ACT, by now everyone has access to free prep material and classes in some places.

We put more emphasis on reading to him and finding ways to engage his brain outside of studying for tests like the CogAT.

And we deferred LIV to stay in Language Immersion. We like the idea of having options but were not dead set on his moving to the Center.

To the OPs original point, she could have spent the money on a CogAT work book on workbooks that would help with math or LA or logical thinking. The choice to prep for a test instead of focus on learning academic fundamentals is interesting to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree. We used a work book for DS, it did not do much, but it was prepping. His scores didn’t change from the NNAT to the CogAT (both were in pool). We didn’t do much with the work book, we had him do a practice test. Is it cheating? Sure. Did it make any real difference? Who knows, maybe his CogAT score would have been lower. In the end, his GBRSs were excellent and those matter more then the test scores.

If someone said we cheated I would agree. We did more to prepare him for a proxy IQ exam then other kids in the class.

I wouldn’t prep him for a WiSC because those are used as a diagnostic test as well as an IQ test. He will prep for the SAT/ACT, by now everyone has access to free prep material and classes in some places.

We put more emphasis on reading to him and finding ways to engage his brain outside of studying for tests like the CogAT.

And we deferred LIV to stay in Language Immersion. We like the idea of having options but were not dead set on his moving to the Center.

To the OPs original point, she could have spent the money on a CogAT work book on workbooks that would help with math or LA or logical thinking. The choice to prep for a test instead of focus on learning academic fundamentals is interesting to me.

You have a very twisted reasoning on why it constitutes cheating:

Prepping is not cheating if there are free resources for it like for SAT. So just because the OP paid $15 for a book, that makes it bad? Or if she downloaded some free worksheets off the internet that would have been ok.

Prepping is cheating only because the test is “proxy for an IQ test”. I’m assuming that you mean that familiarity with the format and contents invalidates the test result. That’s a truly bizarre argument to make, it just seems like a made up rule you just came up with. Do you have a reference on this, a link to a study, guidance from test designers etc? Of course there isn’t any because that would mean you can only take the test once in a lifetime. On the contrary having some familiarity is preferred so that the results are not impacted by knowing how to input the answer, etc.

If you agree that you prepping your child from the book was in fact cheating, why didn’t you accept any consequences deriving from it? Like you should withdraw him from consideration. Seems hypocritical that you call out the poster, when you did it yourself, and you were perfectly fine with your child benefitting from those advantages.

You seem to just want to put the OP down just so you feel better about yourself for taking the moral high ground. Not even… since you already admitted to doing the same thing yourself.

Moreover, who are you to tell her what to do with her money? A single mom, struggling to make a better life for her kids! As I said earlier, you owe her an apology, will you do it or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree. We used a work book for DS, it did not do much, but it was prepping. His scores didn’t change from the NNAT to the CogAT (both were in pool). We didn’t do much with the work book, we had him do a practice test. Is it cheating? Sure. Did it make any real difference? Who knows, maybe his CogAT score would have been lower. In the end, his GBRSs were excellent and those matter more then the test scores.

If someone said we cheated I would agree. We did more to prepare him for a proxy IQ exam then other kids in the class.

I wouldn’t prep him for a WiSC because those are used as a diagnostic test as well as an IQ test. He will prep for the SAT/ACT, by now everyone has access to free prep material and classes in some places.

We put more emphasis on reading to him and finding ways to engage his brain outside of studying for tests like the CogAT.

And we deferred LIV to stay in Language Immersion. We like the idea of having options but were not dead set on his moving to the Center.

To the OPs original point, she could have spent the money on a CogAT work book on workbooks that would help with math or LA or logical thinking. The choice to prep for a test instead of focus on learning academic fundamentals is interesting to me.

You have a very twisted reasoning on why it constitutes cheating:

Prepping is not cheating if there are free resources for it like for SAT. So just because the OP paid $15 for a book, that makes it bad? Or if she downloaded some free worksheets off the internet that would have been ok.

Prepping is cheating only because the test is “proxy for an IQ test”. I’m assuming that you mean that familiarity with the format and contents invalidates the test result. That’s a truly bizarre argument to make, it just seems like a made up rule you just came up with. Do you have a reference on this, a link to a study, guidance from test designers etc? Of course there isn’t any because that would mean you can only take the test once in a lifetime. On the contrary having some familiarity is preferred so that the results are not impacted by knowing how to input the answer, etc.

If you agree that you prepping your child from the book was in fact cheating, why didn’t you accept any consequences deriving from it? Like you should withdraw him from consideration. Seems hypocritical that you call out the poster, when you did it yourself, and you were perfectly fine with your child benefitting from those advantages.

You seem to just want to put the OP down just so you feel better about yourself for taking the moral high ground. Not even… since you already admitted to doing the same thing yourself.

Moreover, who are you to tell her what to do with her money? A single mom, struggling to make a better life for her kids! As I said earlier, you owe her an apology, will you do it or not?

DP. Yes, the test makers have said that the Cogat test is supposed to be taken cold, without prior exposure. A yearly test is allowed because not much is retained after that long. Studying for the test, or taking it frequently, invalidates the test results. FCPS doesn't enforce this and has instead chosen to respond to the increase in studying for the test by decreasing the importance of test scores in the admissions process.

You have hurt the gifted kids without resources by your cheating. When the test is given universally to kids who haven't seen it before, it can identify gifted kids who might be missed by their teachers. Now, the GBRS is more important than test scores. Teacher input is the most important determiner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree. We used a work book for DS, it did not do much, but it was prepping. His scores didn’t change from the NNAT to the CogAT (both were in pool). We didn’t do much with the work book, we had him do a practice test. Is it cheating? Sure. Did it make any real difference? Who knows, maybe his CogAT score would have been lower. In the end, his GBRSs were excellent and those matter more then the test scores.

If someone said we cheated I would agree. We did more to prepare him for a proxy IQ exam then other kids in the class.

I wouldn’t prep him for a WiSC because those are used as a diagnostic test as well as an IQ test. He will prep for the SAT/ACT, by now everyone has access to free prep material and classes in some places.

We put more emphasis on reading to him and finding ways to engage his brain outside of studying for tests like the CogAT.

And we deferred LIV to stay in Language Immersion. We like the idea of having options but were not dead set on his moving to the Center.

To the OPs original point, she could have spent the money on a CogAT work book on workbooks that would help with math or LA or logical thinking. The choice to prep for a test instead of focus on learning academic fundamentals is interesting to me.

You have a very twisted reasoning on why it constitutes cheating:

Prepping is not cheating if there are free resources for it like for SAT. So just because the OP paid $15 for a book, that makes it bad? Or if she downloaded some free worksheets off the internet that would have been ok.

Prepping is cheating only because the test is “proxy for an IQ test”. I’m assuming that you mean that familiarity with the format and contents invalidates the test result. That’s a truly bizarre argument to make, it just seems like a made up rule you just came up with. Do you have a reference on this, a link to a study, guidance from test designers etc? Of course there isn’t any because that would mean you can only take the test once in a lifetime. On the contrary having some familiarity is preferred so that the results are not impacted by knowing how to input the answer, etc.

If you agree that you prepping your child from the book was in fact cheating, why didn’t you accept any consequences deriving from it? Like you should withdraw him from consideration. Seems hypocritical that you call out the poster, when you did it yourself, and you were perfectly fine with your child benefitting from those advantages.

You seem to just want to put the OP down just so you feel better about yourself for taking the moral high ground. Not even… since you already admitted to doing the same thing yourself.

Moreover, who are you to tell her what to do with her money? A single mom, struggling to make a better life for her kids! As I said earlier, you owe her an apology, will you do it or not?

DP. Yes, the test makers have said that the Cogat test is supposed to be taken cold, without prior exposure. A yearly test is allowed because not much is retained after that long. Studying for the test, or taking it frequently, invalidates the test results. FCPS doesn't enforce this and has instead chosen to respond to the increase in studying for the test by decreasing the importance of test scores in the admissions process.

You have hurt the gifted kids without resources by your cheating. When the test is given universally to kids who haven't seen it before, it can identify gifted kids who might be missed by their teachers. Now, the GBRS is more important than test scores. Teacher input is the most important determiner.

Show a link to substantiate this claim that studying for cogat invalidates the test results or you’re making this up.

FYI I’m not the OP, my child never took cogat and never studied any cogat materials. I just think you accusing the OP of cheating is wrong.

[Anonymous]

GBRS was always more important than test scores. My DS was prepped to the hilt and still had a middling COGAT score. He got in on the strength of his GBRS. That was in 2017.

Now, his sister has also gone thru extensive prepping and her score is stellar. Who knows what it would have been without prepping. Her GBRS should be great so I expect her to get in. We’ll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree. We used a work book for DS, it did not do much, but it was prepping. His scores didn’t change from the NNAT to the CogAT (both were in pool). We didn’t do much with the work book, we had him do a practice test. Is it cheating? Sure. Did it make any real difference? Who knows, maybe his CogAT score would have been lower. In the end, his GBRSs were excellent and those matter more then the test scores.

If someone said we cheated I would agree. We did more to prepare him for a proxy IQ exam then other kids in the class.

I wouldn’t prep him for a WiSC because those are used as a diagnostic test as well as an IQ test. He will prep for the SAT/ACT, by now everyone has access to free prep material and classes in some places.

We put more emphasis on reading to him and finding ways to engage his brain outside of studying for tests like the CogAT.

And we deferred LIV to stay in Language Immersion. We like the idea of having options but were not dead set on his moving to the Center.

To the OPs original point, she could have spent the money on a CogAT work book on workbooks that would help with math or LA or logical thinking. The choice to prep for a test instead of focus on learning academic fundamentals is interesting to me.

Lol depending on his home school, you could have done LESS than other parents not more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree. We used a work book for DS, it did not do much, but it was prepping. His scores didn’t change from the NNAT to the CogAT (both were in pool). We didn’t do much with the work book, we had him do a practice test. Is it cheating? Sure. Did it make any real difference? Who knows, maybe his CogAT score would have been lower. In the end, his GBRSs were excellent and those matter more then the test scores.

If someone said we cheated I would agree. We did more to prepare him for a proxy IQ exam then other kids in the class.

I wouldn’t prep him for a WiSC because those are used as a diagnostic test as well as an IQ test. He will prep for the SAT/ACT, by now everyone has access to free prep material and classes in some places.

We put more emphasis on reading to him and finding ways to engage his brain outside of studying for tests like the CogAT.

And we deferred LIV to stay in Language Immersion. We like the idea of having options but were not dead set on his moving to the Center.

To the OPs original point, she could have spent the money on a CogAT work book on workbooks that would help with math or LA or logical thinking. The choice to prep for a test instead of focus on learning academic fundamentals is interesting to me.

You have a very twisted reasoning on why it constitutes cheating:

Prepping is not cheating if there are free resources for it like for SAT. So just because the OP paid $15 for a book, that makes it bad? Or if she downloaded some free worksheets off the internet that would have been ok.

Prepping is cheating only because the test is “proxy for an IQ test”. I’m assuming that you mean that familiarity with the format and contents invalidates the test result. That’s a truly bizarre argument to make, it just seems like a made up rule you just came up with. Do you have a reference on this, a link to a study, guidance from test designers etc? Of course there isn’t any because that would mean you can only take the test once in a lifetime. On the contrary having some familiarity is preferred so that the results are not impacted by knowing how to input the answer, etc.

If you agree that you prepping your child from the book was in fact cheating, why didn’t you accept any consequences deriving from it? Like you should withdraw him from consideration. Seems hypocritical that you call out the poster, when you did it yourself, and you were perfectly fine with your child benefitting from those advantages.

You seem to just want to put the OP down just so you feel better about yourself for taking the moral high ground. Not even… since you already admitted to doing the same thing yourself.

Moreover, who are you to tell her what to do with her money? A single mom, struggling to make a better life for her kids! As I said earlier, you owe her an apology, will you do it or not?

DP. Yes, the test makers have said that the Cogat test is supposed to be taken cold, without prior exposure. A yearly test is allowed because not much is retained after that long. Studying for the test, or taking it frequently, invalidates the test results. FCPS doesn't enforce this and has instead chosen to respond to the increase in studying for the test by decreasing the importance of test scores in the admissions process.

You have hurt the gifted kids without resources by your cheating. When the test is given universally to kids who haven't seen it before, it can identify gifted kids who might be missed by their teachers. Now, the GBRS is more important than test scores. Teacher input is the most important determiner.

In fact you are so full of it that even test administrators recommend students take practice tests provided by the same company that designs cogat:

https://assessments.jordandistrict.org/assessments/cognitive-abilities-test-cogat/

You should be ashamed of yourself! I’m not holding my breath though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why this is cheating? You can’t just accuse someone of cheating without having all the facts in place.

Why is it fine to teach a child these concepts in general but not using a book designed for the test?

Do you actually believe the test is measuring innate knowledge or learned behavior? It’s pretty clear to me it’s learned behavior so it shouldn’t matter how it is learned.

The behaviors can be learned, and thus can be taught. Very bright kids engage in those behaviors without being taught. The idea of the test is to find the kids who can answer questions they’ve never seen before without being taught how to answer them.

Please, you’re telling me without any stimulation from parents kids would just spontaneously develop those skills?

So it’s fine the way you choose to teach your kids, but the way others do it turns into a shameful sin?

The responses on this thread that shame the OP for teaching her kids some concepts are simply embarrassing. They likely come from people that don’t have even the most basic knowledge on learning and child development.

You do realize that some people are just naturally more intelligent than other people, right? Some people will always learn more quickly and easily than others. Those are the children these tests are looking for- not children who have been taught to imitate highly intelligent people. Eventually the kids who have been taught how to take the test will not be able to keep faking it.

I think OP’s point is that some kids may exhibit these behaviors because they’ve been exposed to various enrichment activities. The nature/nurture debate on intelligence is far from settled on this point.

Generally, children won’t exhibit specific problem solving behaviors unless they are either born with the ability or they are taught how the proper approach. Children who naturally grasp how to solve these problems tend to be very intelligent- they don’t need to be taught these behaviors, they just “get it” without being taught.

Enrichment like going to museums and reading lots of picture books doesn’t teach kids how to solve these questions.

No but playing games at home does. DS has been playing board games with us, and by that I mean Settlers of Catan, Clank, Dominion, Dice Thrones, Ticket to Ride and the like, since he was 4. He started playing on a team with an adult and was playing solo by 6. All of those games introduce the concept of thinking strategically, planning out turns, adapting to changes, and the like. They also teach basic math and reading (adding, subtracting, and reading cards).

We also gave him puzzle books with different types of word puzzles and math puzzles that introduced him to problem solving and logic.

I see enrichment as something that teaches someone a specific skill or helps them improve in a specific skill/academic area. Prep involves preparing for a specific test. So you prep for in school exams or SATs or GMAT/LSAT type things. School work is set to enrich and prep for in school exams.

While I know the NNAT and CogAT are not IQ tests, they are used as proxies for IQ tests, which are expensive, so I do think that prep classes defeat the purpose of the exams. The workbooks could defeat the purpose of the exams but I think you need to work pretty hard for that to happen but are still a form of prep.

I can understand parents of kids at Title 1 and near Title 1 schools really wanting AAP, the level of difference in the classes is huge. I don’t get the high SES schools parents being so hell bent on AAP. The program is not all that and their kids are going to be fine in a Gen Ed classroom. I would guess more of the prep is happening at the high SES schools then the Title 1 type schools, which is why it baffles me. It feels like the parents are more focused on the status and having their kid labeled as smart vs really thinking that the education is that much better. Or it is the parents focused on TJ for their 2nd grader, which is something else I don’t get. But that is me.

You are doing a lot of rationalization to fit your own narrative of being a ‘good’ parent, unlike the other parents that circumvent the rules. The purpose of the exam is not defeated if some learning materials identify a skill being tested and help the student master it. It’s funny how you say enrichment is teaching, but prep is prepping. You can’t even articulate clearly the difference between them and why one is acceptable while the other isn’t.

It’s fine to educate your child how you see fit, but you’re going one step further and are make baseless accusations of cheating. This is where you go too far. In real life you would owe that person an apology.

You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree. We used a work book for DS, it did not do much, but it was prepping. His scores didn’t change from the NNAT to the CogAT (both were in pool). We didn’t do much with the work book, we had him do a practice test. Is it cheating? Sure. Did it make any real difference? Who knows, maybe his CogAT score would have been lower. In the end, his GBRSs were excellent and those matter more then the test scores.

If someone said we cheated I would agree. We did more to prepare him for a proxy IQ exam then other kids in the class.

I wouldn’t prep him for a WiSC because those are used as a diagnostic test as well as an IQ test. He will prep for the SAT/ACT, by now everyone has access to free prep material and classes in some places.

We put more emphasis on reading to him and finding ways to engage his brain outside of studying for tests like the CogAT.

And we deferred LIV to stay in Language Immersion. We like the idea of having options but were not dead set on his moving to the Center.

To the OPs original point, she could have spent the money on a CogAT work book on workbooks that would help with math or LA or logical thinking. The choice to prep for a test instead of focus on learning academic fundamentals is interesting to me.

You have a very twisted reasoning on why it constitutes cheating:

Prepping is not cheating if there are free resources for it like for SAT. So just because the OP paid $15 for a book, that makes it bad? Or if she downloaded some free worksheets off the internet that would have been ok.

Prepping is cheating only because the test is “proxy for an IQ test”. I’m assuming that you mean that familiarity with the format and contents invalidates the test result. That’s a truly bizarre argument to make, it just seems like a made up rule you just came up with. Do you have a reference on this, a link to a study, guidance from test designers etc? Of course there isn’t any because that would mean you can only take the test once in a lifetime. On the contrary having some familiarity is preferred so that the results are not impacted by knowing how to input the answer, etc.

If you agree that you prepping your child from the book was in fact cheating, why didn’t you accept any consequences deriving from it? Like you should withdraw him from consideration. Seems hypocritical that you call out the poster, when you did it yourself, and you were perfectly fine with your child benefitting from those advantages.

You seem to just want to put the OP down just so you feel better about yourself for taking the moral high ground. Not even… since you already admitted to doing the same thing yourself.

Moreover, who are you to tell her what to do with her money? A single mom, struggling to make a better life for her kids! As I said earlier, you owe her an apology, will you do it or not?

DP. Yes, the test makers have said that the Cogat test is supposed to be taken cold, without prior exposure. A yearly test is allowed because not much is retained after that long. Studying for the test, or taking it frequently, invalidates the test results. FCPS doesn't enforce this and has instead chosen to respond to the increase in studying for the test by decreasing the importance of test scores in the admissions process.

You have hurt the gifted kids without resources by your cheating. When the test is given universally to kids who haven't seen it before, it can identify gifted kids who might be missed by their teachers. Now, the GBRS is more important than test scores. Teacher input is the most important determiner.

In fact you are so full of it that even test administrators recommend students take practice tests provided by the same company that designs cogat:

https://assessments.jordandistrict.org/assessments/cognitive-abilities-test-cogat/

You should be ashamed of yourself! I’m not holding my breath though.

Oh wow 😮

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what one has to do specifically with the other. Any kid who looks at anything cogat or nnat related outside of school is prepping which is considered cheating the system. You know that. Other kids whose families can afford the extras like you list aren’t cheating. It’s the very reason, however, that your child will have a leg up with college admissions and enrichment opportunities which are looking for low income or URM participants - possibly an URM (based on what you said about your mom) and definitely for being low income. That’s where the scale will tip much more in your child’s favor.

Such B.S. These books are readily available, and cost less than a pair of Jordan’s. Just admit there are cultural factors and play and some families prioritize some things over others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have followed this board for a few months, and noticed quite a few comments from parents who are adamantly opposed to any sort of prep. We enrich or children, they say, but we would never prep! My DC is just naturally gifted. All we do is enroll them in Kumon, AoPS, or that Russia math program. Private piano lessons on Monday, cello on Wednesday, chess tutor on Friday. Then we take the kids to museums on the weekends, we teach them origami, read to them for hours, do logic puzzles, tutoring. We also take them to concerts. And just last month we took DC to see the Duomo in Florence so they could learn about Renaissance architecture! But a workbook? That’s cheating!

Well, my kid did prep, with a workbook, and I’ll tell you why. I work two jobs (home health aid and retail). I am also going to school part time. I work weekends, I often work nights. I am a single mom. My elderly mother, who can barely walk and doesn’t speak English, watches my kid after school. A few weeks before the test I ordered a CoGat workbook. I told my mom, before he turns on the TV, DC has to spend ten minutes going through the workbook. I wish I had the money to send my kid to math enrichment classes, or the time to take him to the Smithsonian. But I don’t. Please don’t write off all prep as cheating. Many people don’t have the resources to enrich their kids the old fashioned way. Suggestions for enrichment on shoestring budget are welcome btw.

LOL sure you're a low-income mom. Sadly a few weekends with a workbook are not comparable to the $20k in prep most of the admitted students receive over nearly a decade before even applying, but keep telling yourself this...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have followed this board for a few months, and noticed quite a few comments from parents who are adamantly opposed to any sort of prep. We enrich or children, they say, but we would never prep! My DC is just naturally gifted. All we do is enroll them in Kumon, AoPS, or that Russia math program. Private piano lessons on Monday, cello on Wednesday, chess tutor on Friday. Then we take the kids to museums on the weekends, we teach them origami, read to them for hours, do logic puzzles, tutoring. We also take them to concerts. And just last month we took DC to see the Duomo in Florence so they could learn about Renaissance architecture! But a workbook? That’s cheating!

Well, my kid did prep, with a workbook, and I’ll tell you why. I work two jobs (home health aid and retail). I am also going to school part time. I work weekends, I often work nights. I am a single mom. My elderly mother, who can barely walk and doesn’t speak English, watches my kid after school. A few weeks before the test I ordered a CoGat workbook. I told my mom, before he turns on the TV, DC has to spend ten minutes going through the workbook. I wish I had the money to send my kid to math enrichment classes, or the time to take him to the Smithsonian. But I don’t. Please don’t write off all prep as cheating. Many people don’t have the resources to enrich their kids the old fashioned way. Suggestions for enrichment on shoestring budget are welcome btw.

LOL sure you're a low-income mom. Sadly a few weekends with a workbook are not comparable to the $20k in prep most of the admitted students receive over nearly a decade before even applying, but keep telling yourself this...

If it's not the. "same thing," then why are those who buy a workbook or work a few sample problems found online prior to the test lumped in as "cheaters" with those that spend $20K at a prep center?

"Prepping" is vilified as cheating, even when it is a very vast spectrum.