12 ms·

At 6 years old, a human is still developing basic skills, that are expected for everyone. The tests at that age give no useful information.

hihgiq150 12y ago
that's just not true. IQ can be measured reliably from the age of 3 and remains stable throughout life
- readerrrr 12y ago
  IQ tests are a great way to determine the outliers, but those test do not do that. As a result, school districts have been developing final assessments in subjects including math, language arts, music, science and social studies to give to students, including kindergartners. They are testing specific knowledge that must be learned at an inappropriate age, not inherent intelligence, and that is the problem.
- philbarr 12y ago
  That seems to be quite a sweeping statement! Any sources for that?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- sp332 12y ago
  IQ seems irrelevant to the performance of the teacher.
true_religion 12y ago
Won't tests at least show if those basic skills (e.g. ability to read the alphabet) are present or not?
- watwut 12y ago
  You can test whether the kid is mature enough to start the school and it makes perfect sense. E.g. fine motor skills, ability to listen to instructions, attention span, ability to split words into letter requires some center to be developed enough too, etc. If the kid is lacking in some too much, it makes sense to delay him a year. It does not mean the kid will be stupid, speed of development has little relation to "final" intelligence. Ability to read the alphabet (or any other set of memorized facts) at that age has very little relation to how the kid will be able to do two years later.
- dagw 12y ago
  If teacher has no idea if a kid in her class knows the alphabet or not without the kid taking a formal written test, then that is a terrible teacher who should be fired. And more importantly all you'll really be testing is how the kid copes with the stress of formal testing, not what the kid actually knows.

hihgiq150 12y ago

that's just not true. IQ can be measured reliably from the age of 3 and remains stable throughout life

readerrrr 12y ago
IQ tests are a great way to determine the outliers, but those test do not do that. As a result, school districts have been developing final assessments in subjects including math, language arts, music, science and social studies to give to students, including kindergartners. They are testing specific knowledge that must be learned at an inappropriate age, not inherent intelligence, and that is the problem.
philbarr 12y ago
That seems to be quite a sweeping statement! Any sources for that?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
sp332 12y ago
IQ seems irrelevant to the performance of the teacher.

true_religion 12y ago

Won't tests at least show if those basic skills (e.g. ability to read the alphabet) are present or not?

watwut 12y ago
You can test whether the kid is mature enough to start the school and it makes perfect sense. E.g. fine motor skills, ability to listen to instructions, attention span, ability to split words into letter requires some center to be developed enough too, etc. If the kid is lacking in some too much, it makes sense to delay him a year. It does not mean the kid will be stupid, speed of development has little relation to "final" intelligence. Ability to read the alphabet (or any other set of memorized facts) at that age has very little relation to how the kid will be able to do two years later.
dagw 12y ago
If teacher has no idea if a kid in her class knows the alphabet or not without the kid taking a formal written test, then that is a terrible teacher who should be fired. And more importantly all you'll really be testing is how the kid copes with the stress of formal testing, not what the kid actually knows.