Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Achievement tests in the early years

This board contains some of the best minds on children's testing, so I have a few questions.

My just-turned five year old was tested on the baseline test for reception aged children (4's and 5's). Scores removed for privacy.

How useful are these numbers in helping us decide about a future skip? What are the chances that his performance won't remain as strong in the future?

The teacher suggested using the test for the next year up as an end of year test, rather than repeating this one. I really like that idea (especially helpful in advocating a skip later, if necessary). Can I argue (if necessary) to the administrators that he's so close to the ceiling/at the ceiling with these numbers?

Are we making a mistake by not advocating for a skip now? Our boy is happy, somewhat challenged (at least in writing), has a wonderful teacher who wants to help him grow, fits in socially, and loves playing at school.

No, receiving the top scaled score does not equate to a perfect raw score (full credit on all items). It means that the student is at the top of the ability of the test to spread the population in a meaningful way--IOW, has reached the measurement limits (ceiling) of the test. The suggestion of using the next year up test is reasonable, as it is not possible to distinguish a child who is (let's say) +4 SD from one who is +5 SD, if the scaled scores top out at +4 SD. Although no true scaled scores could be obtained on out-of-level testing, it would certainly help in advocacy for grade-skipping. Ideally, one would want to keep moving up the grade levels in out-of-level testing in each subject, until his scaled score approached +1 SD of the mean, or so, at which point it might be possible to identify growth/need areas, as well as personal strengths.

No one can predict whether his performance will be just as strong in the future, though it seems reasonable to expect him to test well, absent any specific injurious occurrence.

A skip decision, especially for a young five year old, naturally must include many considerations, in addition to academic/cognitive readiness, such as those you have listed.

You've received excellent information from aeh. I'll just add that parents may become familiar with factors evaluated for acceleration by looking into the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS). You may have read this elsewhere in the forums, but in case you have not... when it comes to acceleration, there are excellent resources at the website of Acceleration Institute, which includes
- A Nation Deceived,
- A Nation Empowered,
- Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS), reviewed on Hoagies Gifted Education Page here.

You might find this article on school readiness tests interesting, especially the lack of ability of such tests to predict future school success. For a grade skip a fuller battery of testing would be more helpful.

http://www.ocd.pitt.edu/files/pdf/sr2002-06.pdf

My DD did get all items correct on her school readiness test but the literacy component included knowing which way up a book should be held and moved up from there. It was literally a readiness test, not an achievement test per se.

In my brief survey of UK DfE-approved (and even some unapproved) baseline reception tests, I found that the majority of them operate on a mean of 100, and SD of 15, like most other age-norm-referenced achievement tests, with the exception of the Hodder test, which appears to have raw scores totaling to 150.

Which would make scores of 149 and 150 very high indeed (+3.3 SD)--but only when compared to other early-five-year-olds.

And the survey of content, even on the upper extension sections, has quite a low ceiling for any somewhat academically-advanced preschooler, with the highest items only in the range of very simple addition and single word reading.

Keep in mind that baseline reception/kindergarten readiness testing, although being used by the UK to track student/school progress longitudinally, is designed primarily to identify at-risk children in the moment, not to accurately place or track anyone performing above the 16th %ile or so.

BTW, the UPittsburgh white paper has value as a general comment on readiness testing, but is actually quite old, as the best kindergarten screening instrument on there (and the one I would still consider the premier test for these purposes), the DIAL, is now four editions removed.

Oh, and with regard to grade-skips, I notice that the reception tests have social-emotional scales as well. Perhaps the data from that portion of the assessment (usually teacher observational, obtained after a few weeks or months in class, or survey, based on parental report) may help you in your decision-making process.

Whist I don't disagree that the information is old, the comments are helpful. School readiness tests such as these are conducted in Australia and they set a low bar. They are designed to find kids who will struggle and not those who are high achieving that is why they have little to say about future success. Most children are expected to be school ready and will score adequately on the test. They are not designed to determine much else. With a low ceiling I don't see that they are much use for advocating and more information would be valuable. He may do very well indeed. The teacher seems helpful which is good and if they administer other tests, such as the next years, then that could be useful.

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. It's good to hear the limitations of such a test. The school definitely felt his scores were very high and had us come in to discuss his performance. His current year is still very much play-based, but his school said next year he'll need an IEP.

Lots of think about, honestly. Thank you again for your thoughts!

Edited for privacy.