Intelligence Tests in Reception? Really?

[BondGate]

DS1 (4.1 yrs) has just started Reception. We've just found out that they've been giving all the kids intelligence tests.

Is this really the done thing in Reception? I guess that intelligence tests may have their place for older children or adults, but isn't 4 - 5 years old too young to be getting meaningful results out of them, given how much development still has to happen before their young brains finish maturing?

FWIW, we've been told that classes are mixed ability all through primary school, but surely it would make more sense to balance classes based on ability shown in classwork rather than by IQ scores?

Are you sure that it was not just baseline tests to see where kids are and what they know?

True IQ tests are not easy to administer to 4-5yo - and they would be done one-on-one as the kids need to understand the questions and what the person is asking them to do. And results at that age group are not highly reliable as even the personality of the tester affects the score.

My guess is that is was some other kind of testing. And it won't be used for streaming kids. Even the pushiest of schools don't do that at Reception. Kids arrive at all levels of school readiness and teachers know that. Also, they need to figure out the best way to teach/differentiate.

Many schools do testing early in the fall term to see what kids still remember after the summer.

No, the teacher told me that it was an intelligence test, and that it showed DS1 had normal intelligence.

It'll be the baseline tests. They are mandatory now. Very important for predicting GCSE results....

Oh, come on. Surely you can't accurately predict GCSE scores from a baseline test of a 4 yr old who's just entered Reception?

Dd took a little baseline test thing. nothing huge just some counting and shapes so they'd know where to start with what child.

I was there it was all very informal and combined with a little chat about how they were settling in. (individual appointments given to all parents) and to meet the teacher etc.

the teacher told me that it was an intelligence test, and that it showed DS1 had normal intelligence

normal intelligence!!! What the What??

there were no "results" dd got a stamp and a smile face sticker.

Plus, in terms of how DS1 compares to the other kids in Reception, he's right at the bottom at the minute, as most of the kid's went to nurseries that had started teaching phonics and writing, and DS1 didn't. We've been given extra homework to help him catch up.

So while DS1's intelligence may be normal, his ability compared to the rest of the class is currently definitely below normal.

If your teacher said this was an intelligence test for kids aged 4.1 then in my humble opinion shes as thick as pig shit

It will be a baseline test, whether the primary teacher in questions understands this or not

Yes hazey, I was a bit at that.

Sorry, x post.

There are many reasons why professional psychologists cannot and will not conduct IQ tests at that age.

To suggest that an intelligence test, rather than a baseline knowledge test, was conducted without your permission and I assume without a professional doing it, is appalling in my opinion.

Baseline assessment isn't mandatory but most schools will be assessing children using one of the three approved programmes over the next few weeks. It replaces the EYFS profile which is no longer statutory.

Sorry, mrz is correct. Very few primaries are likely to opt out of the reception baseline assessment, however - despite strong belief from many child development experts that they are not in the best interests of pupils - because if they do so, they will be judged solely on attainment, rather than progress, at the end of KS2.

I think most of you would be astonished at how closely results at baseline do actually correlate with those at GCSE tbh.

I'm fully aware of the data, Racundra. I also know the difference between correlation and causation.

We attended a talk at school a few weeks ago (junior not reception) where the head said that leaving aside the completely unknown/unpredictable cases where a child goes completely off the rails for some reason, you can predict GCSE results astonishingly accurately from the tests done in junior school.

So if the test at the beginning of reception can determine gcse results, it seems that all those years of education have little in improving the outcome as their fate is already decided

Its also the case that many selective schools assess children at age 3-4 before offering reception places. At my DS's school (a very academic selective) they have only got it wrong a couple of times. Most of the children assessed as suitable to attend the school turn out to be very high achievers (which brings its own problems but that's a different thread!). Not a stealth boast in any way, just pointing out that tests at an early age are certainly capable of being an accurate predictor.

Their fate isn't decided she because there are so many other factors such as their personal motivation, access to the correct resources etc, but it is apparently possible to predict their potential all other things being equal (which they're not). I guess the effective schools perhaps do their best to ensure that the other influencing factors don't take a child off course i.e all children get the right amount of teacher attention, assistance at the appropriate time, taught skills around applying themselves properly and self motivation.

shebird it doesn't. And even if if did - it's irrelevant. Education should be about the journey, not the destination. Of course schools need to assess pupils. There's no reason, however, for anyone other than the school to be aware of the results of those assessments, apart from in the broadest terms ("Hi, Mrs Mother - we've noticed that Junior doesn't seem to be as comfortable as we would have expected him to be with this year's work; is there anything you think we should know about?" etc).

And of course most of the children selected to attend a very academic selective school will turn out to be high achievers - that's hardly surprising. What would be more interesting, would be data on how many of the children rejected through the same assessment also attain highly. Those data don't tend to be available, though...

I understand how this might work in selective schools but there are naturally other factors that contribute to the success of these high achievers. One thing is home environment/ parental influence and the other is the expectation set by school and home to do well.

My concern is that kids are labelled as either clever or not clever from a young age. The expectations are lower for those in the not clever group so they are not pushed to achieve more. It is almost a self fulfilling prophecy. I find that really sad.

I agree, she. And so do at least two professional Early Years associations:

www.early-education.org.uk/sites/default/files/Baseline%20Assessment%20Guidance.pdf

I agree with the others - it's a baseline assessment test, not an intelligence test. Schools need to be able to demonstrate to the DfE, Ofsted, parents and governors how much difference they are making to the children and this is hard to do, particularly for statistics-hungry organisations, if nobody knows their starting point. They are not looking at IQ scores, but are assessing particular areas of the child's development - eg listening and attention, understanding, health and self-care, managing feelings and behaviour, moving and handling, self-confidence, making relationships, reading, writing, numbers, etc, etc, etc. The way they assess it at my ds's school is to put the children into broad bands for each area being assessed (eg child is working below the level generally expected of a child aged between 40-60 months in the area being assessed, or is working towards that level, or is secure at that level, or working above the expected level of a child aged between 40 and 60 months). Given that the areas being assessed are very wide ranging, encompassing far more than academic attainment, the same child may fall in completely different bands for different areas being assessed. The school then knows what each child's needs are to ensure it can get as many children as possible up to a good level of development by the end of EYFS. So I expect what the teacher really meant was that your child was not working below the level expected of a child entering reception. There is no way a school would assess the IQ of its reception children - do you have any idea how time consuming a full IQ test is?! Selective private schools don't do it, either. Besides which, an IQ test fails to tell you an awful lot of exceptionally important things about a child's development that a school would want to know, as it is only assessing a tiny little area of that child's development.

I am so sceptical about these; with my kids, 2 of them would have had some meaningful results, one DEFINITELY wouldn't (he would have come out very low, because of speech and hearing issues, but is storming ahead now, and the little one would just have had no interest in them (this is what his teacher said btw - he missed them by 1 year and she said 'good thing too' because he is a monkey!).

Schools do have to be measured, but the data is becoming ridiculous.