[quote=Loy58 Please forgive me for asking again, but might you explain to me what you mean by the quality of the data?
[My point is that if a student was high in reading, not in math, they could be in a high reading group matched by readiness and ability not chronological age (for example, 6th-7th level)... possibly the same student would be served well in math with others studying 3rd-4th level compacted into one year... etc. EVERY student throughout the school could be served at the best match (or least-worst fit) for each subject.
For example, a "cut score" system would take one lower score - say a CogAT of 129 in a program that requires a 130...and that student is OUT of consideration for programming. In a system that looks at all of the data, an administrator might look at the WISC and outstanding achievement scores (lets assume they are very high, 99.9%) and give this same student another look because of the other high scores. Then this administrator notices the teacher comments, etc. You can switch the data scenarios around in different ways, but just because a student meets a program's "minimum scores" in all areas, doesn't mean this student is necessarily better suited than another student who had, say three 99.9% achievement scores, a high WISC, and one score (lets pick the CogAT) just a point or two below a cut-score. I believe some look at the data is necessary.
I fully understand how and why "cut scores," might have developed - but if administered without any thought or look at the data, they do not seem to meet the goal of finding the best children for the programs, IMO. Cut scores also sound like a nightmare for children that are 2e.
I would agree that all children are entitled to the best programming for them, yes.
As to the different subjects, I think this makes sense. The same student might have different needs in different subjects - I agree.
