I believe there is a misunderstanding about what achievement test results mean.
For example, a five year old who tests at third grade level. This means that the five year old tested like an average third grader. It does not necessarily mean that a 5 year old belongs in third grade or even second grade for that matter.


Please correct me if I am wrong.

While an achievement test result much different from actual grade level is a good indication that some kind of educational customization is warranted, it certainly doesn't mean that the customization should be a grade skip to make the achievement results "normal".

Yes, I agree Mark. I simply posted this because I have noticed parents making comments that make me believe that they think the results of an achievement test means that their child actually belongs in the grade they tested at.
Of course, there are kids who do need grade skips and even several grade skips.

So, at what level would you expect a child to belong? My personal rule of thumb is to try to have my DDs taught at a level where they're around the 90th percentile. DD#2 fits well into her current grade. For DD#1, however, I've only met my goal for gym class.

What they mean is this:

Say your nine-year-old takes an achievement test and the results for, umm, math computation are the 99th percentile, with a grade equivalent of 12.9.

This means that an average graduating high school senior taking the same test would be expected to get the result your child got.

It does NOT mean, as the OP suggested, that you should ship your nine-year-old off to college. He might cry. Mine would.

I'm not sure what the point of the grade-equivalents on those tests is, unless it's to sow confusion...I mean, who cares how a 12th grader would do on a 4th grade test? And did they make a bunch of older kids take the tests so that they could establish norms?

That sounds about right, and my understanding of what the numbers mean is what Val is saying.

It frustrates me no end that Psychoeducational Evaluations are so far apart from helping Parents know what to do or Schools know what to do with the child in front of them. Achievement tests with wacky grade equivalents are one part of it.

Personally, I think all Psychoeducational Evaluators should take down their shingle until
1)they have gone around and viewed all the schools within 40 minutes of where their clients come from
2)they have build advocacy relationships with all the schools and all the districts
3) they get curriculum specialists on staff that can analyze what a child's skill level is in reading and math in a deep way. Is the child following the expected developmental path of learning, or some unique path? How does this child learn best - by reading? by listening? by talking?
4) develop some deep way of evaluating a child's social skills with peer and with adults. Is the child somewhere on the expected developmental path or on some unique path? What strenghts can be used to overcome the weaknesses?
5) study up on multiple exceptionalities, and especially how they present in females.

That would do it.
Grimity

This is only true for certain achievement tests. STAR testing adapts levels and gives harder questions if the child is getting questions right, so it does not mean the child was only tested on grade level. STAR math covers at least through pre-algebra. Achievement tests like the WJ and WIAT have questions that include high school level material, so a GE of 12+ refers to grade level tested, not what a 12th grader would do on 2nd grade material. Similarly, the Explore test is an 8th grade level achievement test. Scoring at the 99th percentile compared to 8th graders reflects mastery of 8th grade level material, even if the child is a 5th grader. There is no GE returned, but the achievement reflected is based on 8th graders, not the age of the test taker.

Results that mean "an 8th grader would test this well on a 4th grade test" can be seen in grade level testing. I've never seen GEs on such tests, but my kids have never taken ITBS or that kind of test.

What a GE means for an individual child when tested on higher level material is anyone's guess! I've seen a WJ score for >18th grade level for math for an elementary kid. That's just a silly number. There isn't any material on the test beyond what most students cover in high school and that is way too brief to demonstrate anything other than superficial familiarity with the concepts. There certainly are not graduate level math questions.

Mostly, I think GEs are best ignored. For tests with more than a few questions per level (Explore, ACT), comparing a kid's scores to how older kids score may be worthwhile. For tests with just a few questions at each grade level, it's not very helpful to get a grade result. Schools care about whether a child has mastered the local curriculum, so end-of-year finals are usually better at figuring that out.

Ahh...I see. I've learned something new. My kids have taken ITBS and CAT (California Achievement, not Computer Adaptive), and what I described what those GE scores mean on those tests. It's even more confusing to think that GE scores mean different things on different tests. Oy.

I agree about the ignoring.

Val

I agree. GE are definitely meaningless on a grade level test, and slightly more interesting on an open ended achievement test like the WJ, Peabody achievement, etc. I definitely don't think they mean you could comfortably drop a child into a particular grade in a subject. I know both my kids would cry if I tried that!

Grinity I could not agree more with your whole list of requirements for hanging out a shingle. Can you clarify this last one more though:


Why especially in females?

Ever tried to get a diagnosis of ADD or AS for a female?

It presents so differently I'm convinsed that these problems are underdiagnosed in females, especially gifted females.

Girls are 'generally' better at covering up all sorts of difficulties.

((shrugs))
Grinity

If at age 9 my son scores as well as the average MIT freshman on the SAT I and the SAT II subject tests, then I will have him use MIT Open Courseware and other resources to study what those students are studying, at least if my son wants to do so.

I think grade equivalents are more meaningful and useful than Z-scores. If the 9yo scores better than the average 6th grader, maybe he should be studying 7th grade math. If all you know is that he scores 2 standard deviations above other 9-year-olds, what does that say about what he should study?

But...


if I offer a test that is intended to measure... um...



well, nevermind that for the moment.

If I offer my daughter a "test" and she scores as well as the next door neighbor (a fifty year old professional) on it, does that mean that she is qualified to be in that person's profession??



Of course not. That's silly. I didn't even tell you what was covered on the test. What if it's a test for-- er-- color blindness?

See what I'm getting at here?

A test that is INTENDED FOR and NORMED FOR a general population of third grade students is going to contain material that THIRD GRADERS are expected to be learning or already know. Yes?

Then it doesn't mean much to say that a person scores "well" on such a test, does it? Aside from the obvious-- which is that the person is obviously a master of the third grade curriculum.

Out-of-level testing is a different matter entirely. But then, I think that still doesn't mean that the GE's given with many standardized test results actually mean what they seem to imply. For example, if a five year old takes a 3rd grade battery, and scores as a "8.6" on the literacy portions of that battery, that does NOT mean that his or her literacy skill set is necessarily "at 8th grade level" so much as that most 8th graders would be expected to score the same on that portion of that test.

But it does mean that the student is probably beyond the readiness level intended by the tool, I suspect.

Percentiles are, IMO, probably a more useful thing overall-- because those indicate when a student is placed "with academic peers" in a more general sense.

At least that is my understanding-- that as long as a student is still scoring at the 99th+ percentile in out-of-level assessments, it's probably insufficiently challenging.

Thanks for clarifying! I am about to try to get my possibly gifted 9 yr old DD diagnosed with inattentive ADHD as it happens :-). And dyslexia. And CAPD.... Which is why I was making sure that is what you meant and that there wasn't something further I was missing...

I think stating that achievement test grade equivalents are of absolutely no value seems like a pretty broad and therefore erroneous generalization.

Surely some of the test GE numbers are more solid than others.

I am not sure I understand the conversation; I am not aware of a large contingent of people who would immediately equate GE=X results to meaning a child needed to be moved up to that specific grade. Nor would they anticipate their child being moved down if they score low.

Surely a difference of even a few years between a child's scored GE and actual grade will indicate a problem in academic fit. If ds was in 4th grade and score ge=2nd grade in reading I would be FREAKED.

What are we worried about here? Pushy people giving a bad name to folks who genuinely need a grade skip or two for their kids?

I don't want to read too much into a couple lines, but this sounds like falling into the calculus trap. Normal math curricula and tests like the SAT/ACT are very shallow. Going deeper may be better than going faster.

http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/articles.php?page=calculustrap

I would have assumed, incorrectly, that the score meant they did as well on their grade level questions as a student from the achievement score grade would have done. I know, I just have to adjust. "Time marches on".

Our district doesn't use STAR math, but they do use STAR reading, and DD's grade-equivalent scores are a good 4 grades above her actual reading level.

I had previously read this essay and do not agree with it. Most people who are very good at math are not going to be mathematicians but will use it as a tool. Calculus is a useful tool, and if a student takes calculus earlier, he will be able to take a "real" physics or economics course earlier. I have bought an AOPS algebra book, and if my son uses other AOPS books, including the one on calculus, that should alleviate the problem of alleged shallowness.

Actually, I think the bigger issue with the idea that the 9-year-old might be ready for MIT classes by virtue of having similar scores on SAT's and other tests is this:

The SAT's have a pretty low ceiling, and fail to capture a great deal of the knowledge that I would expect an MIT student to have. SAT math is not very high-level math. I would bet that most of those MIT students are adept at several years worth of math beyond SAT level and have a much deeper and better understanding of the topics that are on the SAT, plus many more.

Put me in the camp that is distinctly unimpressed by perfect SAT scores. Yes, if your 9-year-old gets a perfect score on the SAT he or she will need some pretty radical acceleration, but I'll bet there are quite a few of those MIT students who were exactly the same.

I can see this point. If I understand it, the Calculus Trap article argues that students should be "learning how to take tools they have and apply them to complex problems."

What I don't get here is that calculus does exactly that: you have to use existing tools (algebra, geometry, arithmetic) and apply them to complex problems ("How many miles did you travel from 2 pm to 6 pm if your velocity could be described according to this formula: <insert quadratic equation>?" "A farmer has 168 meters of fencing and wants to maximize the area of a rectangular corral. What should its dimensions be?"). Etc.


Since when? 1979 or so? High schools have been offering calculus for decades.


Huh? So if you're good at math you can't take a math class that you'll really like? Umm.

If you're really into mathematics, you can join the Math Olympiad club, which meets after school on Tuesdays and Fridays. And your calculus will probably help you a lot, given that getting a calc problem right usually requires combining all sorts of other knowledge.


What in Robert's name does this have to do with taking calculus? The author seems to be implying that taking calculus is anathema to learning to enjoy using your mind. So, all the automatons are calc class, while the really interesting kids are in study hall counting the minutes to math club?

Any really good athlete I've ever met enrolled in one or more PE classes. I expect that many of them learned that they had talent for something in PE class. Unless they had their own high jump sets at home. Some of them majored in it. PE is a great break from sitting at a desk.

No, those are not complex problems in the way that the article means. If you understand the tools taught in calculus, they are absolutely routine: no thought required, beyond a routine translation of words into symbols. The Calculus Trap is exactly people's unthinking assumption that calculus must be challenging because it comes last at school. It isn't, as taught at school; it's easy and unchallenging, and there are many more useful things for young mathematicians to spend their time on.

[ETA if I sound bitter, this may explain: have I mentioned that DS7 has fallen into the calculus trap somehow - that is, he thinks learning calculus will somehow make him grown up - and is determined that he's doing that next? He'll get challenged, though, I shall see to that, bwahaha...]

I agree with Colinsmum. That article is by Richard Rusczyk. He is founder of AoPS and a guy writing some of the best math textbooks for smart kids. He argues that most kids never encounter hard problems in typical school environments. In my experience as a child and a parent, that has been true, even with enrichment, multi-year subject acceleration, and GT math classes. Math Olympiad at elementary level hasn't offered my children the kind of challenge offered by AoPS. The level of problems with AoPS courses or higher level math tests require great problem solving skills. If there is never a problem that isn't obvious (which was definitely my experience in school math before college), then a student has no chance to learn those skills. Like most skills, problem solving increases with practice. Like much of GT research, AoPS takes the approach that a kid ought to encounter difficult things and learn from working through mistakes and struggling with unsuccessful attempts rather than do repetitive easy problems in typical textbooks.

The problem sets in their classes are really hard. They often require trial and error, thinking through many different steps, considering deeply whether one possible solution meets every criteria demanded by the problem, etc. They don't expect all or even most students to be able to get them all right, which means a talented kid has more room to grow. Since I see most of the beauty in math as coming from the hard stuff rather than the plug-and-chug, I think this approach is most likely to hold the interest of a talented math kid.

I have no connection to AoPS, but I admire their program and their approach to math. In all the GT-friendly things my children have done, I see AoPS as coming closest to offering exactly what they needed for the reasons Rusczyk expresses in the calculus trap.

I disagree about calculus in general, but agree that maths as taught in schools puts too much emphasis on superficial stuff.

But this situation isn't calculus's fault. Calculus is a beautiful mathematical achievement, and the fact that schools dumb it down is an argument for better teaching and better schools that actually present challenging material to capable students.

Yeah, pipe dream. I know.

Having fallen into it myself, I definitely do agree with it and am working to avoid it with my kids. That said, my intent there was not to criticize you, but just to call attention to a different point of view.


I wouldn't take the name of the Calculus Trap as meaning any disrespect for calculus as a subject.