First off: statistically, not all of the apparent differences are significant, and even fewer of them are rare (the three-pronged test for discrepancies is statistically significant (usually .05 or .01), rare (< or = 10% base rate), and clinically relevant (aka, IRL)). Of the scores you reported, six meet the first two of those tests (you can tell me whether the third test is plausibly met), two at more than a borderline level:
1. Sentence composition, word reading, oral expression, and spelling tip the 10% base rate standard, which I would consider to be borderline weaknesses.
2. The discrepancies in reading comprehension and numerical operations occur in fewer than 1% of the standardization sample, the former as a relative weakness, and the latter as a relative strength.
3. The remaining subtests are statistically commensurate with his GAI, meaning that this level of difference could have occurred simply by chance.
polarbear's observation is consistent with these findings; the weakest areas are all language-related, and largely consistent with his VCI, with the exception of reading comprehension, which is a mild relative weakness (<10% base rate), even compared to VCI.
I suspect that the numerical operations statistical strength is partly an artifact of the extremely low expectations for calculation skills in beginning first graders. It's certainly on par with his PRI, from a face validity standpoint.
So, bottom line, most of his achievement scores are very much where you would predict them to be, based on his GAI and VCI, with the exception of his reading comprehension, which is significantly lower than either one of them would predict. When you consider that the first three to four years of formal education are predominantly about literacy skills, you can see how this relative weakness could create the kind of tension and frustration that presents as underachievement. Depending on what the role of the psych is, and the philosophy and resource allocation of the local school system, his profile may or may not trigger evaluation for support services (i.e., IEP or GIEP, or both rolled into an IEP). I would want further investigation into the reading comprehension. Is it consistent with his classroom/home/community performance? How were the subtest components of oral reading fluency? Was he slow but extremely accurate, or equivalent in rate and accuracy? Does he struggle with sustained attention (digit span is a flag there), which often affects comprehension of lengthier readings? Just a few questions to begin with.
