Testing for Intelligence?

     When I think about intelligence testing, I have questions?  What are we testing? What does the results of the tests prove?  How does the process of testing or the results affect the child?  I may not have all the answers but, I am going to strive to find the answers.  "In theory, aptitude is the potential to master a specific skill or to learn a certain body of knowledge" (Berger, 04/2015, p. 358).  Measuring a child's intelligence is can be tricky.  In my opinion, what we should concentrate on is a child's individual potential.  Their aptitude instead of their achievement or intelligence.  We should measure their personal progression.  Instead of putting them on a chart that compares them to other children their age.  We should measure where they were in their development and learning to where they are in the present.  Chart that and measure that improvement.  If teachers and parents focused on caring for the whole child and providing them with the information necessary to thrive, their ability to learn would come naturally.  Instead we force feed them information that needs to be remembered in order to pass academic and achievement tests.  "Some scientists doubt whether any single test can measure the complexities of the human brain, especially if the test is designed to measure g, one general aptitude (Berger, 04/2015, p. 359).  I agree with "some scientists". I find that because children change and their brains change, it must be difficult to measure their intelligence or aptitude.  I understand the intent.  I am not sure if it is entirely effective.  It is important that whatever the result of these tests we are available to support them in their development.  

     General classroom practices in Finland may be unfamiliar to teachers in the United States. At age 6, children have the option of attending one year of government-provided pre-primary school, and 96% of students attend. Class sizes are limited to 20 and recommended to have no more than 12 students. At age seven, all students begin nine years of mandatory basic education before
entering upper secondary school for three years of either vocational or general education. A school-leaving certificate, awarded after the successful completion of basic education, allows students to enter upper secondary school.  Normative assessment takes place in early comprehensive school to identify students with possible learning disabilities and need for special education support.  Students are not placed in different classes by ability level; instead, all students are in the same classroom and an additional teacher is present in the classroom to assist struggling students. The assessment system of Finland is based around improving instruction, and the majority of the assessment is formative, or used to improve instruction and learning. Student assessment in Finland takes place in three arenas: within classroom practices, as the final comprehensive assessment of student progress at the culmination of basic education, and during the matriculation examination to serve as a criterion for college admission. Further, the national curriculum is evaluated through the help of an external evaluator and using data from a national standardized assessment, and teachers and schools use self-evaluation to improve education locally.

     Formative assessment within the classroom encourages student growth and self-assessment. The national curriculum specifies the criteria for classroom assessment during the course, and it is the teacher’s responsibility to carry out assessment of students’ conduct and schoolwork along this national criteria. Yearly assessment, based on a variety of student work, provides feedback to students about progress in learning and suggestions for improvement. The high-stakes final assessment of basic education, contained in the National Curriculum, requires student work samples from 2 years and is conducted by the subject teacher. A final type of assessment that is not included in the National Curriculum is the matriculation examination, the only high-stakes standardized test taken by students. The matriculation examination is administered upon completion of upper secondary school if the student intends to complete further education. In sum, Finland’s assessment practices result in
fewer formal assessments and fewer pressures for teachers merely to prepare students for a narrow examination. 

     With the attention the United States has directed at international assessments, some consideration should be paid to the policies of high scoring nations. Although the United States should not leap into educational policies mirroring those of Finland, the differences in the countries’ policies are
dramatic.  On the other hand, teachers in the United States are subject to stringent requirements regarding curriculum and assessment.  Policymakers in the United States might benefit from a consideration of the policy differences in Finland and the effect these policies may have on student performance. After all, if Finland is able to score so highly on international assessments with their hands-off policies, what does that mean for the rigid policies and high-stakes testing in the United States?  Maybe adopting some of their policies about assessment and education could benefit the children of the United States. 

References

Bergen, K. S. (2015). Developing Person Through Childhood, 7th Edition. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Hendrickson, K. (2013). Assessment in Finland: A Scholarly Reflection on One Country’s Use of Formative, Summative, and Evaluative Practices . Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 33-43.