School meeting

We meet with the principle of G's school today to discuss the possibility of A going to Pre-K there. Wood called her last week to set up the appt. Yesterday, there was a message on my answering machine when I got home from work. It was from the school secretary, trying to set up A's Gesell testing appt. Ok, 1) I haven't decided to send her there yet, so it seems more than a little presumptuous, and 2) We made our feelings quite clear about Gesell testing last year. So obviously, the principle didn't listen to us at all. While I strenuously object to the test for Kindergarten placement, I have absolutly no idea why it would even be done for Pre-K.

Facts about Gesell testing:
1) results can be 30-50% inaccurate. You might as well flip a coin.
2) it is not unusual to have as many as 60% of children tested not be "ready" for Kindergarten.
3) Child development has more accepted theories than those of Gesell. Gesell believed the child development was strictly a result of biology. Environment played no part.
3) The test is "normed" on only 640 Connecticut children between 1911-1930. Incidentally, the children were all white.
4) whatever 1/2 of those children did, was considered "normal".
5)In 10-15 minutes maximum, an unknown teacher to your child in a strange environment is supposed to be able to determine your child's abilities and decide educational placement.
6)It is part of the reason that kindergartens across the country have become increasingly academic.
7)any so called "advantage" of delaying kindergarten a year for certain kids has completely vanished by Grade 3. In fact, studies have shown that kids held back are at higher risk of dropping out of high school, and will achieve less academically than if they would have been placed in the "regular" kindergarten.
8)Studies have also shown that parents who object to D-K placement and pull their child out and place them in regular kindergarten over the schools objections, are more successful in school.
9)Kids who "fail" the Gesell test are frequently put on a slower "track" and treated differently from kids who "pass".

Here's the great part. Want to know what Gesell's testing was used for, back when he developed it? It wasn't kindergarten screening.

It was for adoption placement. Gesell (along with his other contemporaries), were "worried" about placing "bright" children with dull parents. Or more often, worried about placing a "dull" child with bright parents. Gesell believed that adoption was risky and even inappropriate for some children, but he also believed that the risks could be scientifically measured and predicted in advance. He believed that some children were unadoptable because they were products of bad heredity. Gesell trusted developmental testing to prevent the adoption of defective children. He believed that child development occurs solely according to a predetermined, naturally unfolding plan of growth

Here is one of his pre-adoption evaluations, on a 2 year old child, that he feels is "subnormal".

"An Attractive Infant, but Subnormal—Child B (age 26 months)

This child was not seen before the age of 2 years. She was born out of wedlock. Concerning the mother there was only the brief annal, “she is untruthful and peculiar.” The child was boarded in a high-grade family home where the foster mother became deeply attached to her and made plans for her adoption and education.

Postponement of adoption has been urged, because the child just now seems much brighter and “more acceptable” than she really is. She is in the “cute” stage of development which conceals her limitations.

In physical appearance she is attractive; in demeanor she is smiling, responsive, playful. She waves “bye-bye” very genially and plays gleefully with a ball. She is just the kind of child who would smite the heart of questioning adoptive parents. If they yielded to the impulse of affection on the first sight, they would then and there resolve to take her into their own home, give her every educational advantage, and rear her as a charming, refined daughter.

These parents would not be entirely disappointed, because the child is not mentally deficient and her personality make-up is relatively favorable. However, the examination proved that she approximates the 18-month level much more consistently than the 2-year level, and the general quality of her attention was far from satisfactory. On the basis of all the clinical evidence it is extremely doubtful that she will ever be able to complete a high school education. She may have some difficulty in completing the grammar grades. In 10 fleeting years the educational limitations of this child will be more palpably revealed; and there may be genuine pangs of regret.

The economic status and educational purpose of the parents are an important factor in this particular adoptive situation. If at the outset the parents are not ready to relinquish their educational expectations, another child should be sought. Some parents are quite content with a favorable, likable personality irrespective of grammar-school success."

Gesell's writings have been criticized by other psychologists because he did not acknowledge that there are individual differences in child development, and his focus on developmental norms implied that what is typical for each age is also what is desirable.

Why are we subjecting our children to these outdated tests again? When I objected to having G testing, I think they assumed that I felt she wouldn't pass. I knew she would do fine, and she did. I always find it odd, however, that schools always have about 1/2 the kids tested recommended for D-K. Convieniently, just enough to fill a class.

I wonder if I hadn't have thrown a fit over the test, if they would have "recommended" G for D-K, based mostly on her age - she is a June birthday, and one of the younger kids in her classrooom. She also was at at the very top of her class last year. Even with the 6 and 7 year olds that are now in Kindergarten. She is currently reading "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". She reads at a third+ grade level, and probably does classwork at a second grade level.

My belief is that parents are the best judge of their child's readiness. We know our children best. If we feel they need an extra year, it should be our choice, our recommendation. And kindergartens should be child centered and play based, not task and skill oriented. Which would help ALL children fit in to kindergarten better.

Off my soapbox now....I'll let you know how it goes. Wood is afraid I'm going in today ready for a fight. Not if they listen to me.