Newton Public Schools
Elementary
Newtonville, MA 024
Student Name: XX XXX
Teacher Name:
Grade:
Date of Birth:
Date of Evaluation:
Age: 10 years, 7 months
Parent(s)/Guardian(s):
Phone: (617)
Type of Assessment: Educational
Evaluator:
Point in Cycle: Initial Evaluation
Title: Learning Center Teacher
Reason for Referral
XX is currently a fourth grader at YYY school in YYY, MA. She transferred from the
ZZZ School in ZZZ at the beginning of grade three. XX’s mother has referred her due to
concerns about her performance in math skills and a lack of focus. According the
Stanford Achievement test administered in the spring of third grade, XX performed in the
average range in reading comprehension, math problem solving and procedures, science,
social studies, listening, and thinking skills. She excelled in language and spelling. She
performed below expectations in word study skills. Her third grade report card indicated
good progress in math and very good progress in reading. Her current teachers report that
XX is performing at an average level across the curriculum, but does not volunteer or
participate in discussions on her own. She is described as “aloof” with her peers even
after she has been approached on occasion. Her classroom teacher reports that she does
not seem to have difficulties due to attention, but both her teachers report that she works
too quickly and often does not complete assignments. The current initial evaluation
addresses the concerns of both parent and teachers, so that XX can make optimum
progress.
Assessment Instruments
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II)
Gray Oral Reading Test-Fourth Edition
XXX, XX – Confidential
2
Behavioral Observations:
XX came to the WWW Elementary School on two early release afternoons, so the school
building was quiet. XX separated easily from her mom. She made eye contact and
engaged appropriately in conversation with the examiner, and seemed curious to tour the
school during breaks from testing. She did not initiate conversation, but she gradually
responded more fully as the afternoon progressed. XX was able to focus and complete
tasks during the two-hour session with four breaks. She needed minimal redirection or
rephrasing of directions. During administration of the math subtests, she expressed some
uncertainty and difficulty recalling computational procedures. She responded well to
praise and encouragement. She did not show evidence of inattention or lack of focus.
These evaluation results are deemed to be an accurate representation of her academic
skills.
Assessment Descriptions and Evaluation Results:
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II)
Is an individually administered measure of academic achievement for ages 4 ½ through 25. The
Comprehensive Form is a curriculum-based instrument that is norm-referenced and, through its error
analysis systems, criterion-referenced assessment in the domains of reading, mathematics, written
language, and oral language. All seven specific learning disability areas identified in t IDEA, 1997) are
measured: basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, mathematics reasoning,
oral expression, listening comprehension, and written expression. Subtests were developed to have similar
formats to enable useful comparisons to be made between each pair of subtests. These comparisons help the
examiner distinguish specific problems in reading or writing form more general language problems. The
KTEA-II was normed using two separate representative, nationwide standardizations, one in the fall and
one in the spring. This procedure was implemented to accurately measure students’ performance both at the
beginning and end of the year.
Following are the subtests scores (8-12 is the average range) and standard scores (greater than 130 = Upper
Extreme; 116-130 = Above Average; 85-115 = Average; 70-84 = Below Average; below 70 = Lower
Extreme). The corresponding percentile ranks are also listed (50 = average):
XXX, XX – Confidential
Letter & Word Recognition
Reading Comprehension
Math Concepts and Applications
Math Computation
Written Expression
Spelling
Listening Comprehension
Oral Expression
Reading Related Subtests
Phonological Awareness
Nonsense Word Decoding
Word Recognition Fluency
Decoding Fluency
Associational Fluency
Naming Facility
3
Standard Score
%ile
Composites
129 (124-134)
133 (126-140)
103 (96-110)
96 (90-102)
124 (134-144)
108 (102-114)
110 (99-121)
99 (96-114)
97%
99%
58%
39%
95%
70%
87%
47%
Reading
101 (93-109)
122 (116-128)
121 (112-130)
118 (111-125)
109 (96-122)
98 (90-106)
53%
93%
92%
88%
73%
45%
Standard Score
%ile
135 (130-140)
99%
100 (95-105)
50%
117 (110-124)
87%
105 (96-114)
63%
Composite:
121 (117-125)
92%
Sound Symbol
Reading Fluency
Decoding
Oral Fluency
115 (109-121)
121 (115-127)
128 (124-132)
103 (93-113)
84%
92%
97%
58%
Math
Written Language
Oral Language
The results indicate that XX has earned a comprehensive composite score that is within
the above average range. XX’s reading composite score was in the upper extreme range
as opposed to math and oral language composite scores that fell in the average range. Her
lowest score is in math computation. In reading related subtests, XX scored in the above
average range in reading fluency and decoding.
In the Reading subtests, XX displayed high end of above average skill in reading isolated
words and scored in the upper extreme range in reading comprehension. She scored well
within the above average range in other reading related composites and subtests except
oral fluency. Sound-symbol associations, Decoding and Reading Fluency were all well
within the above average range. XX seemed to perform equally well in timed vs.
untimed subtests. More specifically, in Letter and Word Recognition, she was able to
decode words such as disheveled, maelstrom, pentameter, and prosaic. Among her errors
were quarantine, retaliation, demerit, apex, and morose. She performed in the above
average range in timed nonsense word decoding. She decoded nonsense words such as
scend, gnitch, and slortion.
In math skills, XX’s composite score falls squarely in the average range with equally
well-developed skills in both word problem solving and computation. XX demonstrated
average problem-solving and logical thinking in the Math Concepts and Applications
subtest, solving one of three multi-step word problems presented. She used scratch paper
to solve calculations to good advantage. XX displayed some confusion with fractions and
converting fractions to decimals. She also made what appeared to be careless errors in
linear measurement and interpreting data from graphs. In computation, XX solved
examples with the four basic operations well. She was able to solve addition, subtraction,
multiplication and long division examples, but she stalled on a two-digit multiplication
problem and was reluctant to try more challenging examples.
XXX, XX – Confidential
4
On this measure, XX scored in the slightly above average range in written language
composite. Her individual responses indicated strong skills in capitalization and average
skill employing punctuation, and she made no errors in using word forms grammatically.
XX writes quickly but her letter formation, proportion and spacing vary. The second
section of the written expression subtest requires the student to retell a story in ten
minutes. XX earned the maximum number of points for length, sentence construction,
subject matter, main point, logical flow and sequence. She did not have evidence of
planning and she finished nearly two minutes early, declining to go back to elaborate or
revise.
Spelling skills fall in the average range. In the spelling subtest, she demonstrated mastery
of words such as physical, hungrier, misfortune, and definition. She omitted an
apostrophe in she’s, and omitted the second c for construction, she wrote wrongley for
wrongly, and iregular for irregular.
XX displayed average ability in Oral Language. In the Listening Comprehension subtest,
XX was able to easily recall information and make inferences after listening to short
paragraphs of story structures and nonfiction information. Errors were a mix of literal
recall of facts and difficulty making inferences. In comparison to Listening
Comprehension, her oral expression skills were also in the average range. She made no
errors in using words grammatically and meaningfully. She had difficulty combining two
sentences into one sentence that preserved the information in both sentences. She also
had difficulty incorporating “although” or “in spite of” when asked to devise a new
sentence structure.
According to this instrument, XX has developed above average skills in phonological
awareness due to her ability to blend sounds into words. Her ability to omit one sound
from a spoken word is average.
Gray Oral Reading Test-4
The GORT-4 is a norm-referenced, reliable, and valid test of oral reading rate, accuracy, fluency and
comprehension. It is designed to identify students who are significantly below their peers in oral reading
proficiency and who may profit from supplemental help, and to aid in determining the particular kinds of
reading strengths and weaknesses that individual students possess. This instrument requires the student to
read paragraphs of increasing difficulty. Oral reading is timed to measure rate and scored for accuracy. The
rate and accuracy scores are then combined to generate a fluency score. After each paragraph is read, the
student chooses from five multiple choice questions to measure comprehension. Subtest scores from 8 to 12
are in the Average range. The Total Score is expressed as a Standard Score (90-110 is average) and
Percentiles (25%-75% is average).
Results:
Rate
Accuracy
Fluency
Comprehension
Total Score
Standard Score
12
11
11
11
106
Percentile
75%
63%
63%
63%
66%
XXX, XX – Confidential
5
This test instrument shows that XX earned an overall score in the average range. Fluency
and comprehension were evenly developed. Her comprehension score is lower than the
results of the KTEA Reading comprehension subtest. This may be due to the fact that XX
was allowed to reread and refer back to text on the KTEA, and looking back is not
allowed on the GORT IV. It should noted during school assignments that XX will benefit
from having extra time to look back before answering comprehension questions in
literature and in content –specific materials.
Summary of Results:
XX is a fourth grader who displays advanced reading skills, strong written language
skills, and generally average academic skills in spelling, math and oral expression.
XX was able to attend to tasks and put forth average effort. She does express some
frustration in completing math computation although her score falls in the average range.
It appears that she has some difficulty recalling computation procedures rather than
lacking mastery of math facts. She does not present as having a significant disability in
math; however, her hesitation to persevere in math skills, and the report that she is
generally somewhat disengaged at school should be explored during the team meeting.
The team should discuss and consider this result in terms of her daily work and
information gleaned from her psychologist’s report.
Recommendations:
1. A summary of these academic achievement results should be shared with XX so
that she has a clear understanding of herself as a learner.
2. XX’s teachers should collaborate on ways to provide additional instruction in
computation procedures to help alleviate XX’s feelings of uncertainty
3. The team should explore ways to capitalize on XX’s advanced reading and
written language skills to enhance overall achievement.
4. Team members will review these results in consideration of appropriate academic
supports.
It was truly pleasure to work with XX during this evaluation. Please contact me at 617559- should you have any questions or comments.
________________________
Learning Center Teacher