The Search for Intelligent Life in Kindergarten

Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman don’t mince words in assessing the effectiveness of the various tests that young children must take as part—and, too often, almost all—of the process of applying to independent schools and to public school “Gifted and Talented” programs. These tests, they tell us in a chapter entitled “The Search for Intelligent Life in Kindergarten,” are “… astonishingly ineffective predictors of a young child’s academic success” (emphasis added).

This disquieting judgment is based on research into the predictive validity of intelligence tests like the WPPSI, tests of learned reasoning ability such as the CAT, and tests that address both intelligence and learning aptitude such as the Otis-Lennon. Bronson and Merryman report that researchers find the correlation between scores on these types of tests given to children before they start school and actual achievement two or three years out is a scant 40%. According to Dr. Donald Rock, senior research scientist with the Educational Testing Service, it isn’t until second or third grade that IQ measures become meaningful. IQ test authors put the mark even later, identifying score reliability as occurring somewhere around age 11 or 12.

Hmmm . . . what’s a school admission office to do? Well, Bronson and Merryman demonstrate that the answer does not lie in other existing tests such as those that rate attention skills or those that measure social skills and emotional intelligence to provide behavior ratings. These instruments, NurtureShock tells us, are even less predictive of future academic success. Their respective correlations to subsequent achievement are 8% and 20%.

Bronson and Merryman sum up the dilemma, “The issue isn’t which test is used, or what the test tests. The problem is that young kids’ brains just aren’t done yet.” Scientists studying the thickening cortex and shifting neural processes of the developing brain may ultimately help us understand why two-thirds of children experience a change, upward or downward, of 15 IQ points between ages 3 and 10. Until we have more information and better tests, a measure of caution seems in order for those of us in admission and for teachers and for parents, as well, as we consider test results for young children, lest we miscategorize, underestimate late developers, or make inappropriate demands on those with early development.

The good news at St. Patrick’s is that, unlike many other schools, we do not require standardized testing of our Nursery or PK applicants and, accordingly, create classes that include children with early and with later development patterns. We do test, of course, at Kindergarten and above but, like most good schools, see testing as just one piece of a much larger picture as we make admission decisions aimed at creating balanced classes.

Some other interesting points presented in Chapter 5 of NurtureShock.

• On an IQ test, fully one-third of the highest-scoring incoming Grade 3 students would have scored below average in testing administered before entering Kindergarten.
• In some cities, preschools proudly advertise that they test children as young as 27 months of age prior to admission.
• It is common for gifted children to make uneven progress.
• Teams at Cornell, Stanford, and Kings College, London have all found that children’s cognitive networks differ from those of adults.
  
• MRI scans of children and adults taking a simple verbal test showed that both used about 40 clusters of brain matter to accomplish the task but that only 50% of the brain clusters were the same.
• Every single scholar that Bronson and Merryman spoke to warned of classifying young children on the basis of a single entry test result.

The Lost Hour

“It is an overlooked fact that children—from elementary school through high school—get an hour less sleep each night than they did thirty years ago. . . . Even kindergartners get thirty minutes less a night than they used to.”

Chapter 2 of NurtureShock "The Lost Hour,” explores in depth and with significant research the effects of this sleep loss on children’s and teenagers’ academic performance, cognitive abilities, and moods and coping skills. There is also growing evidence that lack of sleep may contribute to childhood obesity.

The first part of this chapter considers the impact of sleep on elementary-aged children. One of the most compelling reasons for children to get enough sleep is that their brains “are a work in progress until the age of 21,” and much of that growth and development takes place while children are sleeping. Not only that, but children’s sleep is qualitatively different from adults’ sleep. Sleep scientists have found that children spend 40% more time asleep in the slow-wave state (10 times the proportion that adults spend) during which the brain stores what it has learned during the day, especially vocabulary, times tables, dates, and other factual information and synthesizes memories and makes new associations that lead to “new insights the next day.” Children process what they learn in the daytime while they sleep. And, as the authors emphasize, the intensity of what children are expected to learn today has increased greatly from 10 to 20 years ago.

The second part of this chapter explores teenagers’ need to sleep longer in the morning and argues convincingly that high schools should start an hour later. Why? Two things happen: Adolescents’ circadian systems or biological clocks do a phase shift that keeps them up later, and their brains produce melatonin (a hormone that makes us sleepy when it gets dark outside) 90 minutes later than it does in prepubescents and adults. Therefore, teenagers’ brains are still releasing melatonin when their alarm clocks go off early in the morning. In fact, this is one of the reasons that teenagers are “responsible for more than half of the 100,000 ‘fall asleep’ crashes annually.” It’s hard not to be convinced of this research when one study showed a stunning rise in SAT scores when students had an extra hour of sleep and students themselves reported higher motivation levels and lower levels of depression.

The last part of this chapter examines the recent research on childhood obesity and sleep. It’s no surprise that the less sleep children get, the less active they are during the day. However, Dr. Eve Cauter has discovered that sleep loss “increases the hormone ghrelin, which signals hunger, and decreases its metabolic opposite, leptin, which suppresses appetite.” Scientists are finding a link between “getting fatter” and “getting less sleep.” The several studies the authors cite are quite convincing.

This chapter on sleep, however, does not offer advice on how much sleep children should get each night. After consulting several websites (kidshealth.org, webmd.com, sleepfoundation.org, and an article in KidsPost) there is a general consensus that children ages five to 12 years old should get 10 to 11 hours of sleep a night. Children ages 12 to 18 should get eight to nine hours of sleep a night. And children ages three to six should get 10 to 12 hours of sleep a night.

Here are five findings to consider from this chapter:

• A loss of one hour of sleep is equivalent to [the loss of] two years of cognitive maturation and development (page 32). In other words, a slightly sleepy sixth-grader will perform in class like a mere fourth-grader.
• There are significant academic consequences of small sleep differences.
• Tired children can’t remember what they just learned because neurons lose their plasticity, becoming incapable of forming the new synaptic connections necessary to encode a memory.
• Sleep-deprived people fail to recall pleasant memories, yet recall gloomy memories just fine.
• The Centers for Disease Control now recommends that high schools consider later starts. CDC representatives support the idea that a change in school start times can change lives.

Comments on The Lost Hour of Sleep

Comments on The Lost Hour of Sleep

_displayNameOrEmail_ - _time_ - Remove

_text_

Recent Site Activit

The Inverse Power of Praise

In the first chapter of NurtureShock, Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman present significant research about the damaging effects of praise on children—in particular, praise intended to build self-esteem focused on innate intelligence as opposed to effort. “The Inverse Power of Praise” begins with a descriptive portrait of Thomas, a boy in a gifted program in New York City. Thomas has a high IQ and for years has been told that he is smart. Contrary to what one might expect, Thomas is risk-averse when facing novel tasks, giving up easily or even avoiding challenges. It seems that he has divided the world into two categories, things he is good at and things he isn’t, and sees his abilities and intelligence as fixed, not subject to effort. Accordingly, he avoids situations that compromise this perception.

One researcher in particular, Carol Dweck of Stanford University and previously of Columbia University, has devoted years to evaluating the consequences of telling children that they are “smart” rather than emphasizing effort. Her findings, which have been reproduced by other researchers, demonstrate that children will avoid more challenging work after receiving praise that ties their success to innate abilities—“You must be smart at this,” for example. In contrast, students who are praised for effort seem to do better than expected even as academic tasks become more challenging.

So what does this mean for us as parents and educators? Does it mean that parents and teachers should not praise our children and students? Not exactly. It does suggest that we should think about the ways in which we praise children. Telling children that they are intelligent and smart instead of telling them that they are hard-working and thus are reaping the benefits of diligence could lead children to avoid challenging work and, in some circumstances, lie and cheat to avoid feeling dumb.

At St. Patrick’s, we began examining this phenomenon several years ago when many of our faculty read Carol Dweck’s book Mindset and engaged in conversations about the kind of language we use with students. While we can always call into question research like that presented in the first chapter of NurtureShock, there does seem to be an important thread for us to follow as parents and teachers. Perhaps we won’t completely stop telling the children that they are smart (neither did Po Bronson, by his own account), but we can refocus on effort and save praise for specific, legitimate moments of good work in order to help our children become better able to handle challenges when they face them.

In a nutshell, “The Inverse Power of Praise” suggests that:

• children who are praised as “smart” become risk-averse and lack perceived autonomy;


• children who are praised for their effort improve their performance on academic tasks;


• praise is okay, but it needs to be specific, sincere, and credible, not general and not about innate ability; and,


• students who are highly praised as smart may become more interested in image maintenance and may work to tear others down or even cheat.

Comments on The Inverse Power of Praise