The Outcry Over Preschool Test-Prep and ‘Gifted’ Kindergartens

The story appeared 10 days ago on the front page of The New York Times, but judging from the flood of online comments and the letters to the editor (published yesterday), it is still sparking conversations among parents and educators. Its headline hints at why it hit such a nerve: “Tips for the Admission Test… For Kindergarten.”

The piece shines a light on “test-prep” classes for preschoolers that supposedly provide them with a better shot of being admitted into the “gifted” kindergarten program in New York City’s public schools. It left me shaking my head, and I was tempted to simply dismiss the piece as yet another case of the media zooming in on the parenting practices of elite Manhattanites while missing the more pressing question of how to ensure that children of middle-income and low-income families get a decent education in our country.

But it’s worth taking a peek at the reaction to the article. I, for one, find it reassuring to see so many people questioning the ideas of 1) tutoring preschool children to prepare them for test taking, 2) tests that require preschool children to sit for one hour and 3) labeling children as “gifted”—and using this label to determine whether or not children will have access to educational and enrichment opportunities—as young as age 5.

The comment that I most enjoyed – and that 252 others on the Times web site did too – was this one, posted by “ppff” of New York:

But to me, the phenomenon of test-prep for kindergarteners is a symptom of a much larger story: Parents will do anything to ensure that their kids have access to stimulating learning opportunities. They will fight to place their children in the few places they see as providing a high quality education because – sadly — those opportunities are not the norm. Research shows that most elementary schools do not consistently provide the enriching and developmentally appropriate experiences that young help children to thrive. Teachers in kindergarten often lack training in how to teach 5-year-olds using playful, language-rich strategies (In many cases they are transplants from the 4^th or 5^th grade, where pedagogy is quite different). Little attention is paid to creating a ladder of learning, so that what is learned in first grade builds on what is learned in kindergarten, etc. Curricula are watered-down versions of what is taught in later years or are overly generalized and devoid of content about geography, literature, history and science. Playtime is either overly restricted or it is an afterthought, not harnessed for its learning potential.