Confidential Educational Report

**********************

***** SCHOOL 

Prepared on the:  12th of November 2020

Ref. N:  00000001

By:  E. Stones

Contents

Basic Information. 3

Data Protection Statement. 3

History, relevant background and reason for assessment testing. 4

Early History. 4

Coordination. 4

Views of the Young person. 4

Purpose of the Assessment. 5

Tests used and rationale. 6

Hodder Diagnostic Spelling Test. 6

Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting (DASH). 6

CTOPP. 7

Adjustment to the Test. 7

Test Results. 8

Results from Hodder Diagnostic Spelling Test. 8

Results from the Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting (DASH) Test. 9

Results from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing 2nd Edition (CTOPP2) Test. 9

Observations during testing. 10

Explanation and Interpretation of results. 11

Spelling. 11

Handwriting. 11

Processing skills. 11

Phonological awareness. 11

Phonological Memory. 12

Rapid Symbolic Naming. 12

Conclusions. 13

Spelling. 13

Handwriting. 13

Processing. 13

Recommendations. 14

Spelling. 14

Handwriting. 14

Processing. 14

Notes on Terms. 15

Appendices. 16

Appendix 1:  Checklist – success criteria and marking framework for written feedback. 16

Basic Information

Pupil’s Name:                                        ‘G’

DOB:                                                         26/10/2002

Pupil’s Age:                                            15 years 11 months 1 day (age at time of testing)

Pupil’s Address:                                   ***

Report Author:                                     E. Stones

Qualifications of Report Author:   

BSc (hons) Combined Sciences, CELTA, PGCE, QTS, NASENCO, MEd SEND

Data Protection Statement

Sekolah Rendah **** Primary School does not have a data protection statement, however for the purposes of this assignment this statement has been modelled on the sample statement provided by Essex County Council in the UK (essex.gov.uk, 2020).

The school is committed compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act (2018) and GDPR Guidelines (2018) and therefore, the school employees will:

• Inform individuals why the information is being collected when it is collected

• Inform individuals when their information is shared, and why and with whom it was shared

• Check the quality and the accuracy of the information it holds

• Ensure that information is not retained for longer than is necessary

• Ensure that when obsolete information is destroyed that it is done so appropriately and securely.

• Ensure that clear and robust safeguards are in place to protect personal information from loss, theft and unauthorised disclosure, irrespective of the format in which it is recorded

• Share information with others only when it is legally appropriate to do so

• Set out procedures to ensure compliance with the duty to respond to requests for access to personal information, known as Subject Access Requests

• Ensure our staff are aware of and understand our policies and procedures

History, relevant background and reason for assessment testing

G’s parents approached the school SEN unit as they were worried that G was going to have difficulties completing his upcoming GCSEs without additional support.  Teachers noted that G’s family are a supportive and caring family with a good educational background and that despite his difficulties they aspire for G to go onto to pursue further education.   G’s School Reports reveal that he is a well-motivated pupil and has good relationships with his peers and teachers.  Anecdotal evidence from teachers corroborates this information.  Reports and previous exams also reveal however that G has difficulties with both his fine motor skills and his spelling. 

G has also found the literacy aspects of learning difficult and personally feels that his learning attainment does not match his ‘intellectual ability’.  When interviewed prior to the assessment it was noted that G has a good range of spoken vocabulary, but analysis of G’s portfolio of work indicates that that this is not shown in written work.

A lesson observation carried out by the school SENCO and an analysis of textbooks revealed that G takes longer to read and understand things, misses information or does not process information.  This assessment will be used to inform the type of interventions the school can realistically carry out before the exams begin next summer, also if additional support in terms of access arrangements need to be provided and/or additional assessment of G’s needs.  Information on this assessment will be shared with staff involved directly in G’s learning, his parents and G himself. 

Psychometric tests were chosen to find areas of strength and weakness in terms of spelling, handwriting, phonological processing. This assessment involves the use and interpretation of psychometric tests.  These are standardised measurement instruments that can be used to provide valuable information on aspects of a student’s abilities.

Early History

G is the second child of three, brother one year older and sister two years younger. As a baby G met milestones and made expected progress. However, on reaching school age G’s parents and teachers note that G had difficulties with spelling and social communication needs, similar to his siblings who also encountered similar problems.  There is no history of illness or neuropathology that could explain difficulties with literacy acquisition or any cognitive impairment.  G’s hearing has caused no concern; however, he does require glass for reading and writing.

Coordination

Teachers reports indicate that G has difficulties with his fine motor skills and finds writing challenging, however he is athletic and is a semi-professional snowboarding champion. He therefore appears to display good coordination in gross motor skills.

Views of the Young person

G appears to be a conscientious student and was keen to take the test as he worries that he will not be able to complete his exams without additional support.   G is aware that he takes longer time than other students to process information, record his ideas and complete tasks.  G feels that this is in part due to his slow handwriting speed and his difficulties in spelling.  He feels confident that his knowledge and vocabulary range are broader than he is able to demonstrate in writing and is eager to obtain additional support to enable him to reach his potential and pass his exams.

Purpose of the Assessment

G’s parents feel that his learning attainment does not match his ‘intellectual ability’ he has difficulties with fine motor skills and spelling.  Teachers have noted that he takes time to read, misses information and does not process information.  G is a motivated learner with good relationships with peers and staff.  Information from parents appears to be corroborated.  In assessing corroborating reasons for psychometric testing, school records, examples of G’s work, direct observation, teacher’s reports and previous assessments were taken into consideration as well as anecdotal evidence from parents and G himself.

Based on an evaluation of reading and writing skills there was a case for providing an assessment to see what additional support G will require prior to and during exams.  A total of three tests have been selected that focus on spelling, handwriting and phonological processing in order to find out what the G can do and how to support his development.

Tests used and rationale

The following tests were selected.

Hodder Diagnostic Spelling Test

The Hodder Diagnostic Spelling Test is based upon National Literacy Strategy objectives as well as frequently used incorrect spellings, including technical words so are relevant and match G’s current curriculum objectives. The test provides a standardised assessment of G’s spelling capability and current spelling pattern difficulties and whether he is finding specific aspects of spelling difficult. This information is gathered by looking at the words which are spelt correctly and incorrectly and the errors in misspelt words.

Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting (DASH)

The Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting (DASH) was chosen to analyse the speed and legibility of G’s handwriting. The DASH assessment identifies words per minute in relation to national averages, under both test and non-test conditions. This gives a more accurate description of why G is struggling to write legibly and at a normal speed.  In order to achieve this the tasks demands are systematically varied so that different sub skills can be estimated. The test deliberately encompasses as many different aspects of the skill of handwriting speed as possible.

There are 4 writing tasks and 1 purer measure of perceptual-motor competence. These tasks involve copying, speed of generating material that is over learned and free writing. There is also the facility to focus on fine motor and precision skills.

The tests can be used to help identify if G has handwriting difficulties, identify handwriting speed and provide a detailed description of his handwriting performance.

The subtests within the DASH test are:

1.       Copy best: The individual must copy a sentence in their best handwriting, therefore looking at how long it takes them to write when controlling the visual aspects.

2.       Alphabet writing: The individual must write out the alphabet in lower and upper case, therefore looking at the retrieval of information which is over learned.

3.       Copy fast: The individual must copy a sentence as quickly as possible to identify whether there is a disparity in writing speed and the formation of the letters.

4.       Graphic speed: This test identifies the motor and fine skills of the individual.

5.   Free writing: The individual writes continually for a set amount of time in order to identify the speech with which they write when the formulation of ideas is minimal.   This is a longer writing task in which the pupil writes about their life. 

CTOPP

CTOPP assesses phonological awareness, phonological memory and rapid naming. This was chosen because A deficit in one or more of these phonological processing abilities is often viewed as the most common cause of learning difficulties in general and is linked to difficulties with reading.  The test contains 7 core subtests.  All the subtests measure an aspect of phonological processing and cluster to give a composite score for phonological awareness, phonological memory and rapid naming. 

Phonological awareness refers to an individual’s awareness of and access to the sound structure in language. It is essentially an individual’s knowledge of letter sounds or phonemes and examines the pupil’s knowledge of phonological units of speech and words. Phonological awareness composite is made up from the following subtests;

§  Elision – This subtest measures the extent to which an individual cane say a word and then say what is left after dropping a sound e.g. ‘say toothbrush, now say toothbrush without saying tooth’.

§  Blending words – This measures the individuals’ ability to combine sounds to make a word e.g. ‘what word do these sounds make sē – shě l?’

§  Phoneme isolation – This measures the individual’s ability to identify target sounds in a word e.g. ‘what is the first sound in sun?’

Phonological memory refers to pupil’s ability to recall letters, sounds and sound information from their short-term memory.  Phonological memory affects pupils’ ability to learn new written and spoken vocabulary but has a limited impact on word reading with words that are secure in the individual’s memory or reading common know words or sight words.   Phonological memory is made up from the following subtests;

§  Memory for digits – This measures the extent to which a pupil can repeat a series of numbers ranging in length for 2 to 8 digits.

§  Non word repetition – This measures an individual’s ability to repeat non words that range in length.

Rapid naming

Rapid naming involves naming of digits, letters, objects or colours.  This measures speed of processing of visual and phonological information.  Difficulties with rapid naming are thought to predict poor performance in reading. 

§  Rapid digit naming – This measures the speed at which individuals can name digits.

§  Rapid letter naming – This measures the speed at which individuals can name letters. 

Adjustment to the Test

Although G has no known disabilities, it was necessary to make some minor adjustments during the test.   G wore his glasses and appeared to have no major problems reading the texts, nor did he have any problems hearing me provide oral instruction.  He did not therefore need the text enlarging or extra visual instructions.  He did however need instructions repeated sometimes to allow him more processing time.  G had no problem holding the pencil and writing his answers therefore, no scribe was necessary.  Due to his history of test anxiety he was encouraged to take breaks between tests, but he chose not to take up these opportunities.

Test Results

Key to Scores*

The composite scores are another way of expressing the standard scores a combination of the sums of the different tests involved in the three phonological constructs tested by the CTOPP 2 test (Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory and Rapid Symbolic Naming).

The standard scores are based on a statistical mean of 100 and indicates whether the student is above or below average performance levels for same age peers from the general population.  In this test a standard score between 90-110 is ‘average’.  80-89 is ‘below average’, 70-79 is ‘poor’ and below 70 is considered ‘very poor’ compared with the general population. 

Since there is always a margin of error in test results, a 95% confidence limit or range is given. This represents the range of scores within which we can be 95% confident that G’s true score lies within.

The confidence intervals are the range of values we are fairly sure the true value of the score lies between, allowing for bias etc.

Centiles represent values that indicate the percentage of the distribution that is equal to or below a particular score.  For example, a rank of 45 means that 45% of individuals in the same age range of the standardization sample scored at or below the examinee’s score.

Results from Hodder Diagnostic Spelling Test

The Hodder diagnostic spelling test obtained the following results*:

Name of test

Standard score

68% Standard score confidence limits

Centile

Descriptive Category

Hodder diagnostic spelling test

69

---------------------

5

Below average

·         G obtained a standard score of 69 on the Hodder Test which puts him on the 5th centile and some way below the mean.  The test revealed that G displays some difficulties with doubling of consonants and word endings.  He did however demonstrate the ability to spell some words phonetically and had knowledge of some root words.  There are also instances when he shows some spelling knowledge of some irregular spellings, however his knowledge for his age group is not secure and could generally be classified as ‘below average’.

Results from the Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting (DASH) Test

The DASH writing test obtained the following overall results*:

Name of test

Standard score

68% Standard score confidence limits

Centile

Descriptive Category

Dash (composite)

77

72-82

7.1

poor

·         G achieved a standard score of 77, which lies within the 95% confidence range of 72-82.  This means that his measured performance would not be likely to vary above 82 or fall below 72 (taking into account the effect of variables impacting on his scores such as test reliability, practice or fatigue). 

·         The Standard Score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This highlights that’s G’s ability (using the confidence intervals) shows that he is bordering between 2 and 3 standard deviations below the mean. This gives G a handwriting ability level which is classified as ‘poor’.

·         G shows that he has a strong vocabulary, and this was demonstrated in his free writing.  However, he struggled in the formation of letters, both lower and upper case.  In comparison of his copy fast and free writing sub tests, we can conclude that he found independent writing far more challenging than copying text.

Results from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing 2nd Edition (CTOPP2) Test

The CTOPP tests revealed the following composite results:

Name of test (CTOPP)

Composite score

95% Standard score confidence limits

Centile

Descriptive Category

Phonological awareness (3)

82

77-87

12

Below Average

Phonological memory (2)

98

93-103

45

Average

Rapid symbolic naming (2)

67

62-72

1

Very Poor

·         G achieved a standard composite score of 82 for phonological awareness within confidence limits of 77-87 which places him between 1-2 standard deviations from the mean, within the 12th centile which is classified as ‘below average’.  Problems with Phonological awareness relate to a lack of ability to discriminate, remember, and manipulate sounds at the sentence, word, syllable, and phoneme (sound) level.

·         G achieved a standard composite score of 98 for phonological memory within confidence limits of 93-103 which places him around the mean, within the 45th centile which is classified as ‘average’.  G maintains a good ability to hold on to speech-based information in short-term/phonological memory, which helps when reading and spelling.

·         G achieved a standard composite score of 67 for rapid symbolic naming within confidence limits of 62-72 which places him well below the mean, within the 1st centile which is classified as ‘very poor’ and of concern.  Problems with Rapid symbolic naming can relate to slow processing speed and an inability to quickly name letters, number and shapes.

Observations during testing

G showed a little frustration during the test when he perceived he was getting the wrong answer and this test anxiety could perhaps inhibit his performance in future exams.  This heightened anxiety will be taken into account during my analysis of results.  Future interventions may need to work on his test readiness and include more practice under exam conditions to reduce his test related anxiety. 

G did find writing challenging and his pen grip was not secure, making writing visibly tiring.  Writing in cursive also seemed to be challenging at times.

He did show persistence and declined rest breaks however it is important that he uses these breaks in the future to provide himself with opportunities to reduce his test related anxiety.  G often asked for items to be repeated and repetition clearly helped him process the information.  It did however mean that the tests took longer than expected in some cases.  The DASH tests were timed so this did impact on his scores.

Explanation and Interpretation of results

Spelling

In the Hodder Test G demonstrated the ability to spell some words phonetically and had knowledge of some root words.  There were also instances when he showed some spelling knowledge of some irregular spellings.  He did however display difficulties with doubling of consonants and word endings and his standard score was below average for his year group.

Handwriting

During the DASH test G displayed a strong vocabulary and this was demonstrated in his free writing, however his production was limited in terms of the number of words he produced.  G’s copy fast standard score (9) was slightly below average, however his free writing score (3) was very poor. He did however struggle in the formation of letters, both lower and upper case and he seems to find writing in cursive challenging as not all letters are joined.  G also found sequencing the alphabet challenging and needed a lot of processing time for this task.  His score (4) is considered poor. Probably the most significant result overall is for the skill of independent writing, is a necessity for most exams and an area that requires urgent intervention.

Processing skills

CTOPP assesses phonological awareness, phonological memory and rapid naming. A deficit in one or more of these phonological processing abilities is viewed as the most common cause of reading difficulties. The subtests that make up the versions of CTOPP are all based on measuring some aspect of phonological processing and together identify the overall scores for the composites. These are:

Phonological awareness

The following tests were carried out with G:

·         Elision – a core test for the phonological awareness composite. It assesses aspects of phonological awareness linked to reading instruction. This test requires the segmenting or spoken words into smaller parts. In this component, G achieved a scaled score of 5, placing him in the 5th centile. This means that his phonological awareness is much lower than that would be expected for his age group suggesting that this is an area of difficultly.

·         Blending words – also tests for the phonological awareness composite. A test which requires the blending of individually presented segments into whole words, an important component of early reading. G had a scaled score of 6 for this placing him in the 9th centile, which would be in line with the score gained for his phonological ability previously. This suggests that he is a little better at blending words than segmenting, but again is below average.

·         Phoneme isolation – this measures individuals’ ability to identify target sounds in words.   This was a stronger result than that for Blending words with a scaled score of 10, placing G on the 50th centile. This suggests that G’s phonological processing is stronger than was suggested by the Blending words element, as this is a purer measure of phonological processing, unaffected by the vocabulary of the individual. This score is regarded as average.

Overall, for the phonological processing composite G scored a standard score of 82 which is below average. This means that given the confidence limits G’s score would be between 80 and 89, which is considered well below average.  Confidence limits represent a range of standard scores in which the student’s true score is likely to fall, given room for error or unreliability.  There is a 95% chance that a student’s true performance falls somewhere within this range.  G’s score falls on the 12th centile.  This means that G may require intervention as in this case he scored lower than 88% of the test population.

Phonological Memory

The following tests were carried out with G:

·         Memory for digits – a core sub test for the phonological memory composite. This involves rapid presentation of digits requesting recall, therefore requiring the efficiency of the phonological loop. G’s scaled score for this component was 7, which falls on the 16th centile. This suggests that he is able to cope with and retain a succession of digits less so than would be expected for his age range.

·         Nonword repetition – a second measure of the efficiency of the phonological loop, which requires the repetition of nonwords. G had a scaled score of 12 for this, placing him on the 75th centile. This is suggestive that this is an area of strength and therefore G’s working memory is secure and comparatively an area of strength.

Overall, for the phonological memory composite G scored a standard score of 98. This means that given the confidence limits G score would be between 90-110, which is considered average.  This score falls on the 45th centile.  This means that G scored higher than 45% of the tested population.

Rapid Symbolic Naming

The following tests were carried out with G:

·         Rapid digit naming – a core sub test for the rapid naming composite. Designed to measure differences in the naming of familiarly items. G’s scaled score was 7, which falls on the 16th centile. This suggests that G does take longer than most of his peers to process and recall information about digits.

·         Rapid letter naming – this test is the same as the test for digit naming and designed to ensure the individual is not disadvantaged through their knowledge of numbers. G’s score for this was the same as the rapid digit naming, suggesting that he is able to processes letters and digits at a similar speed.

Overall, for the rapid naming composite G scored 67.  This means that given the confidence limits G score would be between 62-72. This score falls on the 1st centile. This means that 99% of the tested population tested higher than G.  This score places G in the lowest score band, suggesting that G would benefit from practise of fast retrieval of familiar information and teaching oral reading fluency through activities like repeated reading.

Conclusions

The purpose of the assessment was to see what problems G was having in terms of spelling, processing and writing and connect them to specific interventions would fit G’s learning profile.  Tests were conducted using standard procedures.  Allowances were made for time and instructions read and repeated according to the G’s needs.   Therefore, we can interpret the results of this assessment as being accurate.

G’s main strengths are his self-motivation, persistence and positive attitude towards learning.  He is also aware of what areas he needs to develop and is open to and appreciate of support from his teachers.  He also has supportive parents.

In some areas he is slightly below average which means that with a little progress he may be able to draw closer to achieving his aims.  However, in areas such as phonological processing and free writing he needs specific interventions that target these areas.  During exams he will require more time and the SENCO may need to apply for access arrangements as G find handwriting and letter formation, as well as spelling challenging.  G may need further tests with his numeracy skills and reading as these may also be areas where he needs support.  I am also concerned about his anxiety during the test.  His teachers may be able to provide him with more practice under exam conditions so he can get more used to exam scenarios and more advice about reducing advice may be available from his school counsellor.  It’s possible that his anxiety and lack of willingness to take breaks affected the accuracy of this assessment.

Spelling

G displays some difficulties with doubling of consonants and word endings, blending and segmenting phonemes.  He did however demonstrate the ability to spell some words phonetically and had knowledge of some root words.  G has limited (or below average) spelling knowledge of some irregular spellings and although his spoken vocabulary range is good, it does not match his limited written vocabulary range.

Handwriting

G shows that he has a strong vocabulary, and this was demonstrated in his free writing.  However, he struggles writing in cursive and with the formation of letters.  He found independent writing far more challenging than copying text which hints at problems with phonological processing and spelling.

Processing

 The abilities measured by this set of sub-tests include efficient retrieval from long-term or permanent memory and executing a series of operations quickly and efficiently. Deficits in these areas suggest that G has problems with reading and writing fluently and finds difficulties remembering and spelling words with more complex spellings.  His phonological knowledge is weak and probably relates to his problems with his phonological knowledge.

Recommendations

I would make the following recommendations for G in the following areas.  I would also suggest further tests of his reading and numeracy skills and an application for access arrangements for his exams later next year so he can have extra time.    An application for in-class support from Teaching Assistants should be made to allow G to access the curriculum.  This assessment should also be made available to provide evidence for a Statement of Educational Needs.  There should also be a review of G’s writing difficulties carried out with key staff to help develop strategies to support him and to enable him to access the curriculum more appropriately with differentiated work. 

Spelling

As well as one to one support in class or additional small group intervention work to help G to support class work, G would benefit from phonics and literacy interventions, as well as other approaches such as reading comprehension strategies and meta-cognition and self-regulation (Education Endowment Foundation, 2017).  Having supportive parents, G could also perhaps receive an accelerated home reading program and find more opportunities to read and write outside school and use his spelling skills.  Computer assisted learning may help here as there are a raft of spelling games and activities online, as well as dictionaries that G can access online to support his writing and broaden his vocabulary.

Handwriting

G needs support and practice improving his pen grip and use of cursive to help him write more fluently and quickly under examination conditions.  He also needs to have more opportunities for free writing, perhaps using a rubric or some form of scaffolding such as an electronic dictionary so he can quickly find vocabulary and spellings he needs.  He also needs more opportunities for writing under exam conditions and support structuring his writing, using parts of speech to form a coherent text.

Processing

To help G’s build phonological memory skills I would suggest he receives support in segmenting syllables and/or speech sounds before spelling words or with correcting misspellings and support with orally rehearsing the repetition of phrases and sentences that are being written, so to reduce the load on working memory.  Teachers may also provide written, pictorial, or graphic support when spoken language must be processed.  The pace of teaching must be matched to G’s learning ability and he requires a differentiated teaching approach, including differentiated instructions, materials and tasks.

I accept responsibility for the contents of this report.

Signed by the author:   E. Stones        Date:                 12.12.2020   

Notes on Terms

For the tests used in this assessment the following conventions, drawn from the test manuals, are used:

Standard scores have a midpoint of 100 with a standard deviation of 15.

·         scores below 70 are considered very poor.(approximately equivalent to 2nd centile and below)

·         scores from 70 to 79 are considered poor. (approximately equivalent to the 3rd to 8th centile)

·         scores from 80 to 89 are considered below average. (approximately equivalent to the 9th to 24th centile)

·         scores from 90 to 109 are considered average. (approximately equivalent to the 25th to 74th centile)

·         scores from 110 to 119 are considered above average. (approximately equivalent to the 75th to 90th centile)

·         scores from 120 to 129 are considered superior. (approximately equivalent to the 91st to 97th centile)

·         scores above 130 are considered upper extreme. (approximately equivalent to 98th centile and above)

For all tests the centile range is below 1 to above 99 (low to high) with 50 as the midpoint.

The centile score represents how the student would have performed in a sample of a hundred of her peers of the same age, i.e. a score at the 72nd centile means that she would have done as well or better than 72% of the sample and worse than 28%.