A few random questions on (state required) testing scores

[SorrelZG]

The Woodcock-Johnson measures the children in the areas of "applied problems" (word problems), "calculation" (pencil and paper number crunching), and "math facts fluency" (timed drill) and then from what I understand, gives them a "broad mathematics" score from the average of those three scores. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Oh, and I didn't ask the tester all these things because it's taken me days to put them in words and at the time I was weary and distracted.

 

First question: What would explain "above grade" applied problems scores (especially when along side an average, or even below "grade level" calculation score) in children NOT working above grade level? (As an example, the child in fourth grade last year completed Saxon 54 [ie. non-accelerated/4th grade curriculum] and scored a "grade level equivalency" of 11.0 on applied problems, and my third grader this year completing Teaching Textbooks 3 scored 7.0 on applied problems and only 3.3 on calculation.)

 

Second, third & fourth questions: Should I even care about lower calculation and facts fluency scores? And how does one score highly on word problems when they are not on par with calculation anyway? Mathematical word problems ultimately require calculating, right? 

 

Fifth question (and sixth): And while I'm here, what does "grade level equivalency" even mean when in the range of 13.0 to ">17.9"? (not math related, obviously .. we see those kinds of scores more in reading comprehension and vocab -- but then, could this be somehow related to higher math word problem scores? .. but still .. every word problem ends with calculation, right?)

 

And in spite of their "broad math" scores at and above "grade level" (in spite of being dragged down by low calculation or fluency scores .. or rather, apparently, puffed up by high applied problem scores), my 5th grader could not pass the first chapter test for MM5 nor my 3rd grader the first chapter test for MM3.  -_-

 

I have so much I could ramble on about regarding what they did this year and thoughts about changes and possibilities moving forward which I would love input on but I'll limit this post to these questions re: understanding test scores. 

[PeterPan]

Ok, I have a whopping experience of *one* with the WJ, but I'll bite. :D

 

First, the interesting thing with the WJ is that it turns out actual grade levels for each section, not equivalencies the way other tests do. So, for instance, if you take the CAT or IOWA or whatever, they kick out a score that shows at what grade level 50% of kids would have had that score on the same test. It's sort of a funky measure. The WJIII (what we did) is different in that it actually shows at what grade level your dc is scoring. It's a nuance. So see if there are multiple things on the pages they printed out for you. You can also google for WJ score reports and find info on how to interpret subsections, scoring, etc. That is true for any test.

 

Were you actually in the room when they gave it? A typical standardized test has a very narrow range of material, so grade equivalence is an extrapolation. So it might have, on a 4th grade test, material in a narrow range (simple to 5th or 6th) and the "grade equivalence" corresponds to how other kids of a particular grade level would score on THAT test. However the WJ is actually using material of the grade level it's claiming!

 

So, yes, the WJ includes material from age 2 through calculus, as our tester put it, and they don't expect you to know it all. ;) They're going to start testing and stop when they max out the student. This means that yes, literally your dc was performing at xyz level with xyz material, because that material was literally in the test. 

 

Hmm, now your question for why you should care! Well my dd's anomaly's were just that to me, odd, for years until I got her ADHD diagnosis and a full psych eval. Then we were like oh THAT'S WHY... So yeah, there's some reason to care. You probably have a reason you chose the WJ. You know what you're seeing. It means your dc is very bright and has language strengths that are masking other areas. They might have low processing speed to IQ (like actually have a bit of a disability that needs accommodation) or they might benefit from more practice or other types of practice (harnessing their ability to visualize, etc.). My dd has that kind of spread, and rote memory work of any kind is very fatiguing for her. She's also a very slow processor, getting accommodations, etc. That really catches up to you when you're looking at AP, DE (dual enrollment), etc. We chose *not* to do AP courses, because we knew courses aimed at cramming or speed were not going to be strengths for her. 

 

So yes, it means that their facts are not fluent or coming out quickly or that they freeze up or forget sequences of procedures. However when they're in a context and can use maybe their language strengths or VSL strengths or intuitive leaps and don't have to use the Executive Function (weak in these kids) to show steps, boom they're AWESOME. 

 

As for what those super high grade levels mean in reading, they mean high ACT scores. ;)

 

MM is kind of a funky curriculum. All curricula are different. You might want to use a blended approach, using something that harnesses their ability to visualize and gives them strategies along with some drill. MUS is really good for some of these kids. Remember, you've got kids who've already demonstrated they're so bright that they can APPLY like the wind. So all the arguments about how MUS is too crappy poor to use and the kids won't be able to APPLY the math don't matter for your kids. They're able to apply. They just don't happen to nail the basics (sequencing the steps, learning the strategies, memorizing the facts) really well. So something with simpler instruction, something that streamlines it so they really really GET it, could be fab for them. They've already shown they'll be kids who apply it in more complex ways, no problem. 

 

And yes, that's my theory on math curriculum. Too many people think the curriculum decides the outcome. The kid is who he is, and a lot of kids have outcomes that reflect the gift of the kid, not the awesomeness of the curriculum. A simple thing, well done, can actually yield really great results with some kids. That's what I would look for. Remember, you can always bring in gifted level supplements on the side. It's not either/or. Bring in your math literature, your brain teasers, etc. on the side.

 

I actually really like BJU math too. If you have the tenacity to stick with it, it's good stuff.

SaveSave

Edited May 6, 2017 by OhElizabeth

[SorrelZG]

Were you actually in the room when they gave it? 

 

I wasn't. 

 

 

 

I'm really glad I asked these questions. You've given me a lot to think about and I deeply appreciate it.