Test scores dropped, but different tests were used, what should I think?

[Janeway]

My 10 yr old did the Iowa at the end of 2nd grade and then the KTEA (Kauffman) at the end of 4th grade. I know 100% sure that the 2nd grade testing was well done. According to that test, her math skills were at 67th percentile, ELA total was 83rd percentile, and her reading was at 94th percentile. Now, with the KTEA at the end of 4th grade, math scores were at 39th percentile, written abilities at 23rd percentile, and her reading scores were at 77th percentile. 

 

I am worried now. Honestly, she had been in a high pressure charter school. Since she has been home and since Covid, it feels like the kids are on devices way too much. I know I am not comparing from the same tests, so this might be a part of the problem. But I am still worried. Based on her scores this time, the doctor (psychologist) wants to monitor her for written language LD.  But I can see her scores have fallen in every area, is these scores are comparable. 

 

We are also having curriculum changes for fall so that might help too. What she is currently using is not what I have generally used in the past with my others kids who did quite well. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Janeway

[kirstenhill]

We test every year starting in 2nd grade due to state regulations.  I think it's pretty hard to compare against different tests - especially when you are looking at an early elementary level test vs. a mid-elementary level test.  Most K-2 standardized tests take into account that students are still learning to read.  At least when I helped administer the Iowa test with a co-op group a number of years ago, the K-2 tests had a test administrator read many of the questions to the test takers (except the parts that actually measured reading comprehension).   It's a different test taking experience than just having a test book in front of you or sitting at the computer and answering questions. 

And, the tests may not be structured the same way, have different types of questions that may be easier or harder for some test takers, etc.  I'm not familiar with Kauffman/KTEA at all.  We've used Iowa, the Peabody test, and more recently the NWEA MAP test.   Each was pretty different from the others! I've had kids go "down" in a subsection score in the MAP one year, only to rebound up higher the next year.  The year the kid got a higher score some amount of luck may have been at play or the test may have asked more questions about topics we studied recently or they are stronger at.  When the score was worse they may have been rushing/more antsy to finish,  feeling more tired, etc.   

I think it's hard to jump to worrying about a LD of written expression in particular from a standardized test.  The only aspects of written expression that most standardized tests are going to check are things like usage, punctuation, and grammar -- not the actual act of expressing one's self.   It's easy for a kid to blank out and forget grammar concepts, or to have the test cover different aspects of grammar or use different terminology than you covered in your curriculum.

[73349]

The test-makers themselves would tell you 1) It's not valid to compare different tests, and 2) Any given kid will fluctuate some from year to year, especially one whose school does not teach to the test.

My own kid on the *same* test (and same mom teaching) has had year-to-year differences, within a single subject, of 20 (e.g., 50th percentile vs. 70th, or 70th vs. 90th).

If the 4th-grade test was a different format (e.g., paper vs. computer) and/or administered in a different setting from the 2nd-grade test, that's another source of interference in getting good information from it.

Edited June 22, 2022 by 73349

[Ellie]

If you're happy with the materials and methods you've been using, and the progress that *you* have seen with your own eyeballs, then I think you should just continue on and  not worry about test scores.

[ieta_cassiopeia]

If you changed tests and didn't teach that particular test, the entire drop can be accounted for by the test change.

It's worth doing a spot-check using more familiar formats of material (e.g. the curricula you teach or have teached with) to see if there were any actual weaknesses revealed by the test, but don't be surprised if it turns out there were none and it was simply unexpected difficulties with the test format (even small changes to the meaning of the wording of questions can make a big difference). In fact, this could be a useful collaborative debrief, as it may shed light on what exactly it was about the test that didn't click with your child.

Monitoring for learning disability is a good idea if it turns out the gaps are real and not just a test artefact - sometimes it's possible to mask learning disabilities with strengths elsewhere during early grades.