Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
-3.JPG)
American Idol 2012 finale
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > October > 12 > Entry
Should 3- and 4-year-old have spelling tests?
There’s been some blogosphere buzz about a Washington Post series that recently kicked off, called The Rise of the Testing Culture. (Alexander Russo rips the series here, while Jim Horn praises it here.)
In this week’s Carnival of Education, a weekly collection of the best in education blogging, Matt Johnson looks at one part of the piece, the story of how younger and younger kids are facing standardized tests.
I’ve seen some of these test, and they’re not pretty.
Go here for detailed examples of what pre-school standardized test are really like.
It’s inevitable that as public funding is pushed toward pre-school children, accountability will seek to follow. The younger a child is, the less reliable a standardized test can be.
BTW, my review of the book Building Blocks is included in this week’s carnival.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: The Carnival of Education, Young Children
Comments
By Writing Teacher
October 26, 2006 9:04 AM | Link to this
I guess my question is not whether spelling tests are good for preschoolers but whether they are good for anyone. I think we tend to take these Friday rituals for granted, but is there actually any empirical evidence that correlates test-taking with better spelling? I think that’s a reasonable question to ask teachers. The intuitive answer may be “yes,” but I think we’re beginning to find out that a lot of things we thought were intuitive are simply not true—that some myths deserve to be shattered. Alfie Kohn’s new book seems to devestate the idea that homework leads to greater acheivement by showing that there’s no empirical evidence to back up that corrleation. So I think we need to ask questions, and if mindless memorization doesn’t actually lead to better spelling. (I don’t just mean good grades on tests, I mean kids making fewer spelling errors in general several months to several years after the testing has begun), then I think we need to ask why this practice continues.By Mary
October 16, 2006 7:49 AM | Link to this
Neither my son, nor I, minded standardized tests. Supposedly, even today, very few educational resources percentage wise, are spent on standardized tests. The complaints about teaching to the test, etc seem to be a way of fighting accountability. However, I agree the tests (as well as teacher generated tests) should be of high quality. I “nurtured” my son out of traditional education into drastic acceleration (with his agreement) to yank him out low achievement patterns. Later, I heard an educational psychologist specialized in these cases point out drastic acceleration was about the only way for some kids in today’s system to recover. I agree, and I think it is usually left up to the parents with no support from the schools - except for the money parents and students manage to extract from the schools in programs like post secondary enrollment.By Oldprof
October 14, 2006 11:20 PM | Link to this
But Mary, yes, if the brilliant kids are bored to death with over-testing and under-challenging, then certainly they’re going to be bored out of their wits. But I’ve known more than a few genius kids, and they don’t need nearly as much hand-holding and monitoring as others in most cases—give them a challenging project, and they’ll be engrossed for a long, long time. The problem arises when they’re NOT challenged, in which case lots of nurturance is poor compensation.By Mary
October 13, 2006 7:50 PM | Link to this
Old prof, brilliant kids need encouragement and monitoring as much, if not more, than any other kid. They can develop patterns of underachievement if not constantly challenged and nurtured. They start to rebel against the unchallenging busy work that determines a lot of grades, class rank, resume fodder, awards, college admissions and scholarships . The education system generally turns off and does not support brilliant kids. However, many of them do just fine on stardardized tests. So I beg to differ on at least parts of your message.By Oldprof
October 13, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
It’s not about whether some preschoolers will learn how to spell, play golf, or act cute—brilliant kids will be that way without encouragement or monitoring (and abused kids might become the semblance of that way out of self-defense). No, it’s about how we keep getting abused by incompetent testing companies who are hired by misguided—or in many cases, selfish and stupid— educrats in our governments. I agree absolutely that some standardized testing is essential, but the testing described here is overdone and incompetent.By Mary
October 12, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
I guess I missed the spelling test in your links. However, generally speaking a lot depends on the details and what the individual 3 or 4 year old is ready for. Some 3 or 4 year olds already know how to spell and read and eat up the mental exercise. We could also have a debate about whether 3 or 4 year olds really need to go to Disneyworld, McDonald’s, dancing and soccer lessons, wear designer clothes, and have extravagant bedrooms with thousands of toys. A few weeks ago someone on this blog mentioned thong underwear for young children. Somehow, spelling almost sounds wholesome in the big scheme of other things going on. Three and 4 year olds are sometimes considered cute and amazing playing golf (as Tiger Woods did) and in beauty contests (a la child of tragedy Jon Benet Ramsey), but heaven forbid a child should use his or her brains for intellectual development. Some kids learn to read and spell on their on, simply because their parents read children’s stories to them instead of teaching them golf or entering them in beauty contests.