I’m currently involved in administering standardized tests to fourth and fifth grade students. Educators often have a love-hate relationship with testing, and it’s no different here. Testing is difficult for a lot of kids; it stresses them out, and it takes time away from actual instruction.
Given that testing is difficult for older elementary students (and even older students), Mother Jones is asking why in the world the Bush administration has been giving tests to four and five-year old students in Head Start programs?
Okay, I understand you want to measure the success of the program (or use the results to try to get rid of it), but this is not the way to do it. In fact, according to the article, the test has been found flawed and unreliable by the Government Accountability Office.
Mercifully, Congress stepped in this past fall and voted to discontinue the testing program for Head Start students. You can play in peace, kids.
I can think of some reasons to test kids that young–my oldest, for example, would probably have tested as an Aspie by that age, and it would have changed his life for us to know. But there’s no good reason to test them for any reason other than getting them good help and early interventions. That program is the only respite some of them get–it’s a shame to mess with it.
I think that’s the kind of thing true conservatives mean when they complain about too much government intrusion. Good grief. They’ve got years and years to develop panic attacks at school on test days — let them have their nap time in peace.
My daughter is an A-B student, but she doesn’t perform well under pressure, the sols and eog tests are a nightmare, she starts to panic weeks before they begin. In Va an “A” student can be held back for poor test results, not that she has been- but there is still something wrong with this system.