I don't agree with the conclusion that a kid in a sub-optimal learning situation would do better on say an Explore test at 13, then they would at 12 while having been in a closer to optimal learning situation. Now if they had an extra year in an optimal environment, then sure. But the presumption is we skip because that optimal opportunity doesn't exist.
I guess I want to clarify what I meant by talking about my son's Explore scores. If I look at his scores he got as a grade-skipped 4th grader, but compared them to the 3rd graders who took the test (my son by age should have been a 3rd grader when he took the test), then his scores look a lot better. Of course I can't say that he would have gotten the same scores if he had not skipped in the first place, but who knows.
