Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 196 guests, and 25 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    streble, DeliciousPizza, prominentdigitiz, parentologyco, Smartlady60
    11,413 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
    aeh #203017 10/09/14 06:56 AM
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 658
    G
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    G
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 658
    Bumping a dead thread, sorry.

    Originally Posted by aeh
    And here is some norming data:

    Reading.



    Start from p. 98.

    Math.



    Math appears to be capped at +3 grade levels.

    I got DS's scores as percentiles.

    For the math, on table 58, a 4th grader scoring "99 percentile" has a SS of 838-859. Reading up on Table 57 (pg 128), this puts him at a grade equivalent of 11.7-12.9+. He reports that the test was "just fractions and some decimals." He's not a reliable reporter. There easily could have been algebraic expressions involving fractions and he didn't notice, or know what to call it, or realize that this is supposed to be more advanced.

    What does this mean? So is he actually capped in testing +3 grade levels (so 7th grade) or is it telling us something more?

    The only reason I care: I suspect these tests will be used to help determine whether or not he can take math 7/8 compacted next year.

    The kid is about to undergo a boatload of stressful testing for other things. I can ask for a retest on this if I have to, but I won't if it's not going to have any impact.

    geofizz #203019 10/09/14 07:31 AM
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    The implication would be that he maxed out the test, with skills of at least seventh grade-level. The manual suggests that a fourth grade test would not have information on skills above seventh grade. Keep in mind that the grade-equivalent tells you what the median 11.7+ student would score on the same test, not that there were actual grade 11 & 12 items completed correctly.

    Is there any reason to believe his scores would be an obstacle to compacted 7/8 math, at the moment?


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    aeh #203025 10/09/14 08:12 AM
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 658
    G
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    G
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 658
    Thanks, aeh.

    I laughed at the 11.7. We keep getting that number for this kid since before he started kindergarten - never valid, but certainly a recurring level.

    So looking at that table more closely, an 838 (his minimum score) is found at the 54th percentile for 10th grade. Does that mean that the 838 number is meaningless as a standalone measure? A 10th grader starts taking the test at the 10th grade level, so is not limited to a 7th grade level of math.

    I'm missing something basic. No bother - I'll ask for a retest. Sigh.

    Originally Posted by aeh
    Is there any reason to believe his scores would be an obstacle to compacted 7/8 math, at the moment?

    The district is very anti-their-own-7/8 course, and do everything they can to limit enrollment in the program. His performance is rather uneven - not for lack of understanding but for lousy test format: it's the online Pearson digits curriculum that the teacher prints out as paper and pencil test - with computer formatting preserved. An 8 year old with a suspected writing disability and increasing attention issues isn't going to perform well there. I see zero problems with his comprehension. I know from experience that he will need to have a rock-solid case built up this year to make next year happen.

    Last edited by geofizz; 10/09/14 08:37 AM. Reason: missing words. DS isn't the only one with attention issues
    DeeDee #203028 10/09/14 08:36 AM
    Joined: Apr 2010
    Posts: 2,498
    D
    DeeDee Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Apr 2010
    Posts: 2,498
    Is the 7-8 really compacted (reasonable workload), or just accelerated (do it all faster)? If there are writing issues, one might seem more reasonable than the other for him.

    DeeDee #203029 10/09/14 08:39 AM
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 658
    G
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    G
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 658
    Originally Posted by DeeDee
    Is the 7-8 really compacted (reasonable workload), or just accelerated (do it all faster)? If there are writing issues, one might seem more reasonable than the other for him.

    Last year's class did every single lesson, every single problem. This year's class has a different teacher, and I'm watching it closely (thankfully a friend & professional colleague has a kid in the class). So far, it appears compacted in deference to the talent of the kids in the class. This will also most certainly be part of the decision.

    Note that writing volume is rather minimal when it's all on the computer. I'm more concerned about making DS hate math.

    I want to make the decision together with DS, however, not to have it made for us on account of incomplete/incorrect/misleading testing.

    Last edited by geofizz; 10/09/14 08:41 AM.
    DeeDee #203031 10/09/14 08:45 AM
    Joined: Apr 2010
    Posts: 2,498
    D
    DeeDee Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Apr 2010
    Posts: 2,498
    Can you get the gifted ed. teacher leader/ supervisor on the phone and ask point blank whether this test score will matter in selection for this 7-8 class?

    A STAR retest isn't that big a deal-- it's 20-30 minutes. But yes, avoiding unnecessary testing is reasonable, especially when the child finds it stressful.

    They should NOT be keeping him out of any gifted service he qualifies for, just because of a disability. HK has posted on Lillie-Felton before. I can dig out more documentation if needed.

    geofizz #203051 10/09/14 11:23 AM
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Originally Posted by geofizz
    Thanks, aeh.

    I laughed at the 11.7. We keep getting that number for this kid since before he started kindergarten - never valid, but certainly a recurring level.

    So looking at that table more closely, an 838 (his minimum score) is found at the 54th percentile for 10th grade. Does that mean that the 838 number is meaningless as a standalone measure? A 10th grader starts taking the test at the 10th grade level, so is not limited to a 7th grade level of math.

    I'm missing something basic. No bother - I'll ask for a retest. Sigh.
    838 is a scaled score--actually a Rasch score, which means it's continuously scaled across the grade norms, and is supposed to be equal-interval, meaning the difference in difficulty level between an 838 and 638 is equivalent to the difference in difficulty between a 638 and a 438. Obviously, since academic skills don't really grow at a uniform rate, and who knows what "difficulty" really means anyway, this is approximate at best. Now this sounds fabulous as a means of assessing growth, and making scores more comparable across grade levels, but for the question of where 838 comes from. It's derived (like most standard scores and scaled scores) from a raw score, with its requisite basals and ceilings. This would work nicely, if children had nice solid basals and ceilings, with uniform success on all items below the basal, and a smooth, predictable pattern of failures just below the ceiling. Alas, children decline to fit comfortably into this idealized pattern of performance. Consequently, some students' 838 fit the ideal, and probably are better represented by the grade equivalent than others. Others have a lot of holes before the basal level, and receive an overestimate of their actual skill level. One could miss some easy items at an inopportune moment (say early in the item set), and be directed to a lower level set of items, receiving a lowered estimate of their true skills. If you have conceptual skills above your calculation skills, or skills that you figured out on your own, absent instruction, you might be able to do some problems above the level of your ceiling, but we won't know that, because you ceilinged before then. If you start from a higher basal (such as in the 10th grade), the floor of the test will effectively not be as low, which may overestimate skills.

    A 10th grader starts at about the 8th or 9th grade level, so, yes, they won't be limited to 7th grade level, and can in fact top out the test, in terms of item difficulty. But the low end of the spectrum will also not be represented as accurately.

    The scaled score is not meaningless as a stand-alone measure, it just comes with a collection of caveats, just as the age/grade-equivalent scores derived from it do. It's most useful as what it's designed for, which is a growth score (keeping in mind that, at the upper extreme, it is possible to run out of the pool of high-level items, if too-frequent multiple measurements are taken--even more true of MAP).


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    DeeDee #203055 10/09/14 11:52 AM
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    Z
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Z
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 1,478
    I've done some poking around at the MAP scores and tables. My biggest take away is that around half of kids leave school with at best a 7th grade understanding of English and Math.

    Aufilia #204008 10/21/14 09:50 PM
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 336
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 336
    Originally Posted by Aufilia
    Originally Posted by aeh
    apm, at what points did your daughter take STAR reading over the past year? If a student has not taken the test in over six months, the system automatically resets the start point to 1-2 grades below the grade placement.


    This is good to know. It is true for both reading and math? At our first meeting at DD8's new school they said they were planning to assess with the STAR to determine levels for her, but it if starts 1-2 levels below grade and caps at 3 above starting, that won't be useful at all. smirk

    Just to follow up, I didn't manage to talk to DD's teacher before they did the STAR. I got results for the reading portion which give DD a PR of 99 with the instructional reading level of 11.3. I doubt they started her at grade 8, so it apparently didn't have problem moving upward. No scaled score, unfortunately.

    aeh #209290 01/20/15 11:34 AM
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 336
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 336
    Originally Posted by aeh
    One could miss some easy items at an inopportune moment (say early in the item set), and be directed to a lower level set of items, receiving a lowered estimate of their true skills.

    Does anyone know if teachers are able to review the actual questions and answers that resulted in a given score? DD's teacher has sent home her STAR "Instructional Planning Report" which lists as grade 3 (I'm assuming that's the baseline grade?) with a SS of 881.

    I haven't the faintest what the benchmark was because this information appears to rely on color viewing, and my printout is black and white. And it rates her as "grade 5" in Operations and Algebraic Thinking, which seems about right, but then "grade 2" for Measurement and Data. The other 3 areas are all either grade 3 or 4. I'm thinking she probably screwed up or wasn't paying attention to some measurement skills because she certainly CAN "draw a picture graph or bar graph to represent set data" well above 2nd grade level, and add/subtract within 1,000 when she bothers to use a pencil on paper and pay attention to what she's doing. But realistically I have no information whatsoever on HOW she got these scores.

    I have no idea how she managed to get an apparently above-grade-level-expectations score when her actual results in each category are all over the map....

    Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    New, and you'd think I'd have a clue...
    by astronomama - 03/24/24 06:01 AM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    Son 2e, wide discrepancy between CogAT-Terranova
    by astronomama - 03/23/24 07:21 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5