Intelligence Testing

I believe that it is important to measure and assess the academic learning skills of children.  In saying that, I think that the way that they are measured is extremely important.  It is important to know if children are obtaining the skills that they need to be successful in a very competitive economical world.  Children need to be able to read, write, perform mathematical operations, and have knowledge of scientific processes.  These are all skills that they will learn while they are in school.  It is important to assess children in order to learn if they are obtaining these skills.  If they are not obtaining the skills, then the curriculum or teaching methods need to be adapted to allow for successful acquisition of the skills. 
     As a teacher it is important for me to know if the students I am teaching are learning what they are being taught.  I can find this out by assessing them on the skills.  I am then able to adapt my teaching to provide for those children who have not yet acquired the skill.  If I find that the whole class is having trouble, then I am able to reteach a topic a different way.  If I find that only a small number of students have not yet grasped the topic, then I can pull them into a smaller group and work with that group individually.  Assessment tools allow for success in the acquisition of knowledge. 
     The problem that I find with the assessment of children is not in the assessment itself, but rather in the way schools perform the assessment.  In my home state of Pennsylvania, children have to take yearly state assessments that are supposed to show what they are capable of.  This testing begins in third grade and continues throughout high school.  The school district is then held accountable based on the students' performances on these tests.  The problem I (and many of my colleagues) have with these tests is that it is not a true measure of what a child has acquired.  These tests do not take into account what may be happening in a child's life while taking the test.  They also only show a snapshot of learning.  We spend hours each day shoving skills down our students' throats in order to prepare for these tests.  Due to the fact that there are so many skills that are tested, there is not enough time to really see if the students have learned the skills that they are being tested on.  In most cases, exposure to the skill is all they have.  We then take these children and give them a test that is supposed to measure what they "know".  I believe that assessment would be much better founded if it was done more often and took into account the learning styles and lives of the children.  If for example a child has not performed well on a weekly test, but looks extremely tired, why not take into account that the reason for the poorness in performance has to do with the lack of sleep.  In standardized testing this isn't taken into account.  If we were able to perform real assessment, we would be able to then test that student on a day when they have clearly had more sleep and can show what they truly have learned.  Assessment should be formative and summative, not just one or the other.  There needs to be a balance of both forms of assessment.  I also believe other aspects of a child’s life need to be taken into account.
            In China, educational assessment has become an important factor in their reform of their educational system.  In the U.S. assessment is focused on just the academic areas in a child’s life.  Whether they have acquired a certain set of skills in Reading, Math, and Science.  We then hold schools accountable instead of the students.  In China the focus of assessment is on the child as a whole, taking into account not only academic growth but emotional health, learning styles, fine arts, values, and confidence.  Their assessment strategies focus on formative and summative assessments where in the U.S. the focus is primarily summative.  In China they have a sort of checks and balances system where the child evaluates him/herself, the teacher evaluates the child, and then the teacher evaluates him/herself.   In this system, the student is held accountable for the learning, not the school.    Their assessment is designed to make students and educators accountable for the achievements in the major areas of learning such as Reading, Math, and Science.  It is also used to improve other skills such as the way students solve problems, and think critically and creatively. 
            In looking at the differences between the U.S. and China in their forms of assessment, I think I have to agree more with the way the students in China are assessed.  I think the U.S. could also benefit from the whole child approach to assessment.  When teaching, we are expected to take into account the learning styles of our students and adapt our teaching accordingly, but when it comes to standardized tests, there is no adaptability.  The tests are administered the same way for every student and they are expected to perform well on them.  Is it fair to assess all children the same way when not all children learn and perform the same way?  I say definitely not!  I would like to see an approach to assessing where the students are assessed continually throughout the year and data is kept to prove what the children are or are not learning.  We would then get a clear picture of what each specific child needs in order to better equip future teachers with the strategies they would need to teach each child.  I believe if we are using differentiated instruction, then we should be using differentiated assessment as well and holding not only the teachers accountable for their teaching, but the students accountable for their learning as well. 

Resource:

Case, B. J. (2005, 09). Assessment report-the age of accountability. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/9B951F2F-37A6-4508-A656-3EF8FE346B19/0/AgeofAccountability.pdf