Escalating Academic Demand in Kindergarten: Counterproductive Policies

Shepard, Lorrie A.; Smith, Mary Lee

doi:10.1086/461568

Cited by 140 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In part, this comes from children being more knowledgeable and skilled, as they have had more experiences when they come to school, and in part, this could come from parents who have chosen to delay school entry, wanting a more challenging curriculum for their children (Shepard, 1997). There are indications that teachers tend to focus on the older children in the class (Shepard & Smith, 1988) and that they tend to omit from the curriculum the things that only a few children do not know or have not experienced (Graue, 1992). When these tendencies are combined, it is easy to see how the younger, less socially advantaged child may be considered to be having difficulty keeping up with the rest of the class, and how any perceived problems then become located with the child, or the family, rather than the school or in the relationships between children, families and school.…”

Section: Escalation Of the Curriculummentioning

confidence: 99%

Who's Ready for What? Young Children Starting School

Dockett

Perry

2002

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Each year, as children start formal schooling, there are discussions between parents and educators about children who are, or are not, 'ready for school'. The first section of this article examines issues of readiness, definitions of readiness, and considers some implications of decisions about children's readiness status. Following this, and in the context of different perspectives of readiness, the views of Australian children, parents and educators are considered. These views indicate some similarities between the expectations of parents and educators, and some differences between what children and adults regard as important in the transition to school. Implications for early childhood education and educators are considered.

show abstract

Section: Escalation Of the Curriculummentioning

confidence: 99%

Who's Ready for What? Young Children Starting School

Dockett

Perry

2002

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…§ Standardized tests can be misused by teachers and schools. Test results can, for example, be used to make inappropriate retention decisions (especially for lowachieving students) because retained students will naturally score higher on standardized tests when they are re-tested the following year (Shepard & Smith, 1988;Slavin & Madden, 1991). Slavin & Madden (1991), have further suggested that: (1) there can be a disincentive to invest in preschool, kindergarten, and 1st-grade programs because gains achieved at this level would be ignored and it would make it harder to demonstrate later increases in student achievement; (2) there is a risk that schools could inflate their average scores by excluding students "at the lower end" and, (3) because of the problem of "regression to the mean" schools can mis-interpret gains (i.e., retained students will generally score higher when re-tested).…”

Section: Criticisms Of Norm-referenced Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting standards to the test: A design for evaluating the systemic reform of education

Puma¹,

Raphael²,

Olson³

et al. 2000

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Washington state's test data also exhibits this trend (see Table 1), although not uniformly. But whether the higher scores reflect increased student learning is unclear (Haladyna, Nolen & Haas, 1991;Mabry, Aldarondo & Daytner, 1999;Shepard & Smith, 1988;Smith & Rottenberg, 1991). Are the scores accurate, and are they triggering appropriate consequences that yield improved teaching and learning?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Impact of State Testing in Southwest Washington

Mabry

Poole

Redmond

et al. 2003

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A decade after implementation of a state testing and accountability mandate, teachers' practices and perspectives regarding their classroom assessments and their state's assessments of student achievement were documented in a study of 31 teachers in southwest Washington state. Against a background of national trends and standards of psychometric quality, the data were analyzed for teachers' beliefs and practices regarding classroom assessment and also regarding state assessment, commonalities and differences among teachers who taught at grade levels tested by the state and those who did not, teachers' views about the impact of state assessment on their students and their classrooms, and their views about whether state testing promoted educational improvement or reform as intended. Data registered (1) teachers' preferences for 2 of 35 multiple measures and their objections to single-shot high-stakes testing as insufficiently informative, unlikely to promote valid inferences of student achievement, and often distortive of curriculum and pedagogy; (2) teachers' objections to the state test as inappropriate for nonproficient speakers of English, for students eligible for special services, and for impoverished students; and (3) teachers' preferences for personalized assessments respectful of student circumstances and readiness, rather than standardized assessments. Teachers' practical wisdom thus appeared more congruent than the state testing program with measurement principles regarding (1) multiple methods and (2) validation for specific test usage, including usage with disadvantaged subgroups of test-takers. Findings contrasted a distinction of emphasis: state focus on "testing students" as distinct from teachers' focus on "testing students."By 2001-02, standards and standards-based testing were being implemented in 49 states to evaluate school and student performance (Meyer, Orlofsky, Skinner & Spicer, 2002, p. 74), all save Iowa where the state requires district standards (Neuman, 2002) and where it has been reported that virtually all school districts administer the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (Bond, Braskamp, van der Ploeg & Roeber, 1996;Mabry & Daytner, 1997). Formal purposes for standards-based state testing programs typically include statements of intent to improve student learning. For example, Substitute Senate Bill 5953 (SSB 5953), the origin of Washington state's current testing program, opens with these words:If young people are to prosper in our democracy and if our nation is to grow economically, it is imperative that the overall level of learning achieved by students be significantly increased. To achieve this higher level of learning, the legislature finds that the state of Washington needs to develop a performance-based school system. . . . [T]he state needs to hold schools accountable for their performance based on what their students learn. . . . [I]t will be necessary to set high expectations for all students, to identify what is expected of all students, and to develop a rigorous...

show abstract

Escalating Academic Demand in Kindergarten: Counterproductive Policies

Cited by 140 publications

References 6 publications

Who's Ready for What? Young Children Starting School

Who's Ready for What? Young Children Starting School

Putting standards to the test: A design for evaluating the systemic reform of education

Local Impact of State Testing in Southwest Washington

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About