Another perspective on “prepping” from a lower income mom

[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.

If your kid has to be enrolled in KUmon, AoPS or that Russia math program, your child is not naturally gifted. Your child is tutored.

[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.

If your kid has to be enrolled in KUmon, AoPS or that Russia math program, your child is not naturally gifted. Your child is tutored.

They are two different things and unrelated with each other. Some kids enrolled in these programs are naturally gifted and honing their talent, some aren’t.

All these qualifiers like prepping, naturally gifted etc. are simply justifications for peoples biases in their pathetic attempt to feel superior to others, or to put an asterisk to others accomplishments to diminish them in some way.

In the end it’s mostly sour grapes and it doesn’t matter at all for anything.

[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...

I agree the OP doesn’t exactly write like she’s low income single mom working retail and home health. But I believe her point still stands and is well made.

[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.

If your kid has to be enrolled in KUmon, AoPS or that Russia math program, your child is not naturally gifted. Your child is tutored.

People enroll may their kids to push them past their “natural” limits, while others do so to cultivate natural talents, since the public school system moves at a slower pace. There is another thread where a bunch of parents are arguing about enrolling their 9 and 10 year old kids in Algebra I. One of the moms said she spent two years tutoring her kid in math at home, and now wants him to take college Algebra (although whether or not the course constitutes college level math is contested). Is the kid smart? Sure. Would this 9 year old have naturally mastered these concepts without parental intervention? Unlikely.

Absent universal IQ tests, gifted service programs cannot ascertain which kids, ceterus parabus, are naturally brilliant. For what it’s worth, I don’t have my kid in Kumon or AoPS or anything of the kind, but we did work through a CoGat workbook. Kid did fine, but was not in pool (131 vqn). Would she have done better if I had enrolled her in Kumon and CoGat boot camp, as many of her classmates have done? Maybe. But I’m not worried about other people’s kids.

[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?

NP. I completely agree with this, and find myself astonished by the lack of self-awareness shown by the poster you to whom you are responding. It is mind-boggling.

[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?

NP. I completely agree with this, and find myself astonished by the lack of self-awareness shown by the poster you to whom you are responding. It is mind-boggling.

NP. The test designer has made statements that the test is vulnerable to prepping and is designed to be taken with no previous exposure at all. While prepping probably invalidates the test results, that hasn't been formally stated, as it is for a formal IQ test. FCPS has responded to the increase in prepping by moving away from test scores and to more subjective measures.

OP can do what she wants. Is it cheating? Yes, in spirit. She won't have valid results, nor will it increase her DC's chances for admission the way it might have a few years ago. But maybe she'll feel better about what she feels like she should be doing for her DC.

Prepping and cheating are human nature. Tests will not be secret black boxes forever, they will always be gamed eventually.

[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?

NP. I completely agree with this, and find myself astonished by the lack of self-awareness shown by the poster you to whom you are responding. It is mind-boggling.

NP. The test designer has made statements that the test is vulnerable to prepping and is designed to be taken with no previous exposure at all. While prepping probably invalidates the test results, that hasn't been formally stated, as it is for a formal IQ test. FCPS has responded to the increase in prepping by moving away from test scores and to more subjective measures.

OP can do what she wants. Is it cheating? Yes, in spirit. She won't have valid results, nor will it increase her DC's chances for admission the way it might have a few years ago. But maybe she'll feel better about what she feels like she should be doing for her DC.

Prepping and cheating are human nature. Tests will not be secret black boxes forever, they will always be gamed eventually.

Someone posted this link (https://assessments.jordandistrict.org/assessments/cognitive-abilities-test-cogat/) that clearly shows students should be exposed to the test before taking it. Boot camps are problematic and may approach a “cheating” threshold but going through a workbook is not cheating.

[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?

NP. I completely agree with this, and find myself astonished by the lack of self-awareness shown by the poster you to whom you are responding. It is mind-boggling.

NP. The test designer has made statements that the test is vulnerable to prepping and is designed to be taken with no previous exposure at all. While prepping probably invalidates the test results, that hasn't been formally stated, as it is for a formal IQ test. FCPS has responded to the increase in prepping by moving away from test scores and to more subjective measures.

OP can do what she wants. Is it cheating? Yes, in spirit. She won't have valid results, nor will it increase her DC's chances for admission the way it might have a few years ago. But maybe she'll feel better about what she feels like she should be doing for her DC.

Prepping and cheating are human nature. Tests will not be secret black boxes forever, they will always be gamed eventually.

You are just making things up.

No test maker will make a statement that their product is vulnerable to prepping, they would just shoot themselves in the foot! Why would a school district buy their rest then, and not go with a competitor’s test that can’t be gamed.

Most evidence is that gains from prepping are either statistically insignificant or very small. Check this study that looks at SAT prepping:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228337033_Using_Linear_Regression_and_Propensity_Score_Matching_to_Estimate_the_Effect_of_Coaching_on_the_SAT

From the study:

For those students that have taken both the PSAT and SAT, effect estimates of roughly 11 to 15 points on the math section and 6 to 9 points on the verbal are found. Only the math effects are statistically significant.

[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:

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?

NP. I completely agree with this, and find myself astonished by the lack of self-awareness shown by the poster you to whom you are responding. It is mind-boggling.

NP. The test designer has made statements that the test is vulnerable to prepping and is designed to be taken with no previous exposure at all. While prepping probably invalidates the test results, that hasn't been formally stated, as it is for a formal IQ test. FCPS has responded to the increase in prepping by moving away from test scores and to more subjective measures.

OP can do what she wants. Is it cheating? Yes, in spirit. She won't have valid results, nor will it increase her DC's chances for admission the way it might have a few years ago. But maybe she'll feel better about what she feels like she should be doing for her DC.

Prepping and cheating are human nature. Tests will not be secret black boxes forever, they will always be gamed eventually.

You are just making things up.

No test maker will make a statement that their product is vulnerable to prepping, they would just shoot themselves in the foot! Why would a school district buy their rest then, and not go with a competitor’s test that can’t be gamed.

Most evidence is that gains from prepping are either statistically insignificant or very small. Check this study that looks at SAT prepping:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228337033_Using_Linear_Regression_and_Propensity_Score_Matching_to_Estimate_the_Effect_of_Coaching_on_the_SAT

From the study:

For those students that have taken both the PSAT and SAT, effect estimates of roughly 11 to 15 points on the math section and 6 to 9 points on the verbal are found. Only the math effects are statistically significant.

DP. This is flat out untrue. The maker of the CogAT has stated that it is vulnerable to prepping.
https://www.judymlevine.com/uploads/5/4/6/7/5467082/thoughts-on-policies-to-mitigate-effects-of-practice-tests-and-coaching.pdf
One of the author's suggestions is to provide prep materials to everyone, so the playing field is leveled. For the most part, they suggest doing exactly what FCPS is doing: using the test scores as only one factor in a much more holistic process.

Also, this entire debate and all of the "prep-shaming" is absurd. The reality is that people will prep, no matter how much you stomp your feet and call it cheating. In light of that, FCPS should either eliminate the test altogether, or they should just provide prep resources to everyone. There is no other way to at least somewhat level the playing field. If many affluent or otherwise advantaged people are going to prep, the last thing you should be doing is shaming a disadvantaged mom from trying to do whatever she can to boost her disadvantaged kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If many affluent or otherwise advantaged people are going to prep, the last thing you should be doing is shaming a disadvantaged mom from trying to do whatever she can to boost her disadvantaged kids.

1000%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If many affluent or otherwise advantaged people are going to prep, the last thing you should be doing is shaming a disadvantaged mom from trying to do whatever she can to boost her disadvantaged kids.

1000%

I’m convinced the board game braggart mom above is just anxious that a poor, possibly POC kid will take the spot she believes her kid is entitled to because he’s her kid and they had him playing Settlers at 6.

[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.

If your kid has to be enrolled in KUmon, AoPS or that Russia math program, your child is not naturally gifted. Your child is tutored.

So what 95% of the APP and TJ kids go through extensive tutoring. That doesn't make them any less gifted, but these days that's what it takes to compete because the prep arms race is on!

[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:

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?

NP. I completely agree with this, and find myself astonished by the lack of self-awareness shown by the poster you to whom you are responding. It is mind-boggling.

NP. The test designer has made statements that the test is vulnerable to prepping and is designed to be taken with no previous exposure at all. While prepping probably invalidates the test results, that hasn't been formally stated, as it is for a formal IQ test. FCPS has responded to the increase in prepping by moving away from test scores and to more subjective measures.

OP can do what she wants. Is it cheating? Yes, in spirit. She won't have valid results, nor will it increase her DC's chances for admission the way it might have a few years ago. But maybe she'll feel better about what she feels like she should be doing for her DC.

Prepping and cheating are human nature. Tests will not be secret black boxes forever, they will always be gamed eventually.

You are just making things up.

No test maker will make a statement that their product is vulnerable to prepping, they would just shoot themselves in the foot! Why would a school district buy their rest then, and not go with a competitor’s test that can’t be gamed.

Most evidence is that gains from prepping are either statistically insignificant or very small. Check this study that looks at SAT prepping:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228337033_Using_Linear_Regression_and_Propensity_Score_Matching_to_Estimate_the_Effect_of_Coaching_on_the_SAT

From the study:

For those students that have taken both the PSAT and SAT, effect estimates of roughly 11 to 15 points on the math section and 6 to 9 points on the verbal are found. Only the math effects are statistically significant.

DP. This is flat out untrue. The maker of the CogAT has stated that it is vulnerable to prepping.
https://www.judymlevine.com/uploads/5/4/6/7/5467082/thoughts-on-policies-to-mitigate-effects-of-practice-tests-and-coaching.pdf
One of the author's suggestions is to provide prep materials to everyone, so the playing field is leveled. For the most part, they suggest doing exactly what FCPS is doing: using the test scores as only one factor in a much more holistic process.

Also, this entire debate and all of the "prep-shaming" is absurd. The reality is that people will prep, no matter how much you stomp your feet and call it cheating. In light of that, FCPS should either eliminate the test altogether, or they should just provide prep resources to everyone. There is no other way to at least somewhat level the playing field. If many affluent or otherwise advantaged people are going to prep, the last thing you should be doing is shaming a disadvantaged mom from trying to do whatever she can to boost her disadvantaged kids.

I’m guessing you’re not an expert in the field otherwise you’d realize the link is not from the test maker, riverside insights. It’s just someone making a memo of his opinions, no data is analyzed, no methodology on how to arrive to conclusions.

I agree that prep-shaming is absurd but from a different angle: prepping is making very little difference past getting familiarity with how the test works and I’d say a waste of time past that point. Test prep resources are in fact available to everyone. Go to the public library, there are many test prepping books.

One thing is clear, you can’t enforce equality of opportunity for all kids. That’s just how our society works, parents with means and motivation will pour resources in their kids education resulting in them being better prepared (on average). Testing just measures this discrepancy, it doesn’t cause it. Any other metric you come up with, eg grades, essays, etc, will show the same thing. Nevertheless, I believe the motivated child from the single mom can and will succeed if they apply themselves.

[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:

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?

NP. I completely agree with this, and find myself astonished by the lack of self-awareness shown by the poster you to whom you are responding. It is mind-boggling.

NP. The test designer has made statements that the test is vulnerable to prepping and is designed to be taken with no previous exposure at all. While prepping probably invalidates the test results, that hasn't been formally stated, as it is for a formal IQ test. FCPS has responded to the increase in prepping by moving away from test scores and to more subjective measures.

OP can do what she wants. Is it cheating? Yes, in spirit. She won't have valid results, nor will it increase her DC's chances for admission the way it might have a few years ago. But maybe she'll feel better about what she feels like she should be doing for her DC.

Prepping and cheating are human nature. Tests will not be secret black boxes forever, they will always be gamed eventually.

You are just making things up.

No test maker will make a statement that their product is vulnerable to prepping, they would just shoot themselves in the foot! Why would a school district buy their rest then, and not go with a competitor’s test that can’t be gamed.

Most evidence is that gains from prepping are either statistically insignificant or very small. Check this study that looks at SAT prepping:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228337033_Using_Linear_Regression_and_Propensity_Score_Matching_to_Estimate_the_Effect_of_Coaching_on_the_SAT

From the study:

For those students that have taken both the PSAT and SAT, effect estimates of roughly 11 to 15 points on the math section and 6 to 9 points on the verbal are found. Only the math effects are statistically significant.

DP. This is flat out untrue. The maker of the CogAT has stated that it is vulnerable to prepping.
https://www.judymlevine.com/uploads/5/4/6/7/5467082/thoughts-on-policies-to-mitigate-effects-of-practice-tests-and-coaching.pdf
One of the author's suggestions is to provide prep materials to everyone, so the playing field is leveled. For the most part, they suggest doing exactly what FCPS is doing: using the test scores as only one factor in a much more holistic process.

Also, this entire debate and all of the "prep-shaming" is absurd. The reality is that people will prep, no matter how much you stomp your feet and call it cheating. In light of that, FCPS should either eliminate the test altogether, or they should just provide prep resources to everyone. There is no other way to at least somewhat level the playing field. If many affluent or otherwise advantaged people are going to prep, the last thing you should be doing is shaming a disadvantaged mom from trying to do whatever she can to boost her disadvantaged kids.

I can't think of a test that isn't vulnerable to prep. Honestly, it's just the way things are. Wealthy people will always have an edge here. The only way to level the playing field is to ensure that all schools have spots in these programs.

[Anonymous]

Prepping in itself is not cheating, only if it is for tests such as CoGAT because, in theory and for the results to be truly valid, the child should not have seem, work on it for at least the last year.

That said, since everyone else (or the majority) are cheating, by cheating yourself (by prepping your child), you are just leveling the playing field.