{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020752269779507133, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.276422764227642, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Teaching to the Test: Coaching or Corruption

Despite their current popularity, many still view coaching schools for college admissions as somehow vaguely unethical, as a form of “teaching to the test.” But “coaching” as an instructional exercise only crosses some ethical line of propriety when instructors have access to and in fact teach the actual items that will appear on the operative examination. A distinction is drawn between coaching that relies on “test wiseness” and memorizing answers, and coaching that results in genuine understanding. Three different outcomes of effective coaching are discussed, two of which may actually contribute to the validity of the test in predicting school success, and only one of which potentially detracts from test validity.