sthe SBLM wasn't really that instrument (although admittedly better at that than most of what we currently use). This is why I typically suggest using academic placement tests in the actual curriculum being used by the school in question for academic acceleration decisions. Why use proxies or predictors for appropriate placement instead of the actual tasks designed for placement in that curriculum?
Aren't "academic placement tests in the actual curriculum" just achievement tests? My dd has a lot of potential, especially in the category of "fluid reasoning", but her school refuses to accelerate her. They're basing their opinion not to accelerate because "she's doing fine and up to level in her grade" based on their "curriculum". Never mind the fact that she's basically 1/10,000 in potential with the LM. You might deduce I'm in a current emotional tussle with this issue.
I personally taught her last year how to add and subtract fractions because she loves to work out complex problems and WANTS to do this stuff before bedtime. This year, she won't even touch her homework because it's "baby stuff". And, it's true. In second grade they barely learn what a fraction is by the end of the year.
If we're talking about potential versus achievement then how does a parent rage against the machine when something like fluid reasoning, or potential, isn't considered or weighed very heavily?
