Intelligent Testing

Is intelligent testing necessary or is about accountability for federal dollars?  In my experience of working in elemetary ed. and early childhood education I have seen the pros and cons of intelligent testing.  Children are not being testing for intelligence.  They are being tested to see if their teachers are doing their job so the school can recieve money.  I mean really lets be honest here, children cannot recive modifications in fomal testing unless it is specifically in their IEP and that can have some catch 22 in it.  I beleive intelligent testing does have a purpose but it should serve the purpose of the child.  If the federal government wants to really test the intelligence of children then lets put our money into individualizing the testing like we are taught to teach the individual child.  Every child would have a test that best suits their style of learning and multiple intelligence. 

In Finland here is the criteria for the school system.

The Finnish school system uses the same curriculum for all students (which may be one reason why Finnish scores varied so little from school to school).

Students have light homework loads.

Finnish schools do not have classes for gifted students.

Finland uses very little standardized testing.

Children do not start school until age 7.

Finland has a comprehensive preschool program that emphasizes "self-reflection" and socializing, not academics.

Grades are not given until high school, and even then, class rankings are not compiled.

Teachers must have master's degrees.

Becoming a teacher in Finland is highly competitive. Just 10% of Finnish college graduates are accepted into the teacher training program; as a result, teaching is a high-status profession. (Teacher salaries are similar to teacher salaries in the U.S., however.)

Students are separated into academic and vocational tracks during the last three years of high school. About 50% go into each track.

Diagnostic testing of students is used early and frequently. If a student is in need of extra help, intensive intervention is provided.

Groups of teachers visit each others' classes to observe their colleagues at work. Teachers also get one afternoon per week for professional development.

School funding is higher for the middle school years, the years when children are most in danger of dropping out.

College is free in Finland.

In Finland, students are not sorted into different groups or schools but different types of learners are learning together. In this kind of setting high achieving students seem to serve as positive models for their less advanced classmates. The curriculum differs from that applied in systems characterized by tracking and streaming. Efforts are made to provide instruction to cater to the needs of different learners in terms of their skills and interests.

Preschool education — a relatively new addition has been part of their educational system for the past 10 years.  Preschools are nonacademic in the sense that no clear academic targets are set. Socialization into school culture and learning to work together with children is the central role. Preschool is not compulsory in Finland, but 96-97% of the children go to it.

http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/1075-u-s-students-compare.gs