I have a 5 year old that is currently enrolled in the Waldorf School. We are trying to figure out if this is the best spot for him as he has been assessed with low scores on MVPT-3 (less than 1%). At the same time, he completed the KABC II & the Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement III and seemed to do well although I can't find any comparative scores for a child his age. Here's what we have:

MPI: 111
FCI: 121
Sequential Index: 115
Simulatneous Index: 94
Learning Index: 120
Knowledge Index: 141

Woodcock Johnson
Letter-Word Identification: 168
Reading Fluency: no score due to age
Story Recall: 112
Understanding Directions: 119
Calculation: no score due to age
Math Fluency: no score due to age
Spelling: 106
Writing Fluency: no score due to age
Passage Comprehension: 142
Applied Problems: 118
Writing Samples: 121

He's had no academic instruction at this point. We'd like to make sure we have him in an environment that will close the gaps between his strong and weak points.

Any suggestions on how to interpret the results and any experience with Waldorf vs. more traditional education options?

Thanks!

Hi Amy! Unfortunately I think you are going to have to give this one a little time before you get "answers". He's clearly very bright, with loads of potential, with what appears to be some very verbal strengths. I wouldn't necessarily call the other areas "weaknesses" though at age 5.

VERY few people seem to be familiar with the K-ABC-II, but two of mine had it, and one was just 5. However, as luck would have it, he was NOT given the "knowledge" subtests, so I only have scores for the other areas. The simultaneous index is very perceptual, visual-spatial type puzzle problems. His score there while lower, is still within average.

Did you get any GE's for the WJ? I'm particularly curious about the Letter-Word score. With the GE, I can see exactly what he was doing on the test papers themselves.

What is the MVPT? I don't know that one, and am on my way out the door.

But welcome!!!

Oh, and in case you don't know the very basics, scores on both tests of 100 are dead average (mean), with a standard deviation of 15. This means that scores from 85-115 are pretty much average, but scores in either direction that exceed that range are a little more unusual. So you can see that the 168 is quite high (+4 standard deviations) but that is one of the subtests that can inflate just a bit in the early years.

Hope that helps....now I'm really on my way out!

Ah, I came home and googled MVPT-3, and realize it's a visual perception test. Problems in this area will certainly affect the IQ testing, particularly in that simultaneious processing area. However, his score there of 94 is just under the 50th percentile, and nowhere near as problematic as the 1st percentile!

Do you per chance have the subtest break down (scores in the 1-19 range)? Perhaps that would be more telling. Visual perception problems are unfortunately not my "expertise", but lots of folks on these boards know more than me in that area.

Dottie:

Thanks so much for your replies -- you are a wealth of knowledge!

Here's what I have for the WJ test:

Letter-Word ID: 4.8
ReadingFluency: 2.2
Story Recall: 1.8
Understanding Directions: 1.4
Calculation: n/a
Math Fluency: n/a
Spelling: K.4
Writing Fluency: n/a
Passage Comp: 2.1
Applied Problems: 1.4
Writing Samples: K.9

On the KABC II subtests:
Number Recall: 12
Word Order: 13

Conceptual Thinking: 10
Triangles: 12
Pattern Reasoning: 5

Atlantis: 14
Rebus: 13

Expressive Vocabulary: 17
Riddles: 17

Interestingly, the tests that they were unable to score measured Owen's writing abilities which he hasn't even started yet -- Waldorf has a non-academic kindergarten and doesn't even introduce letters and numbers until the first grade.

Amy

Um...you do know he can read, right? His reading scores are actually quite high. He was reading some pretty impressive words there at that GE4.8 level. And even though they didn't score his fluency, his GE there suggests he's fairly fluent.

The two subtests under "knowledge" do measure what is referred to as "crystalized intelligence" (what a kid knows), and his score there is very high as well, easily in the gifted range despite the lower "full scale". Despite the lower spatial scores, and in light of possible indentified problems there, this is a very gifted child.

It is interesting too that on that one low index (simultaneous), only the one test (pattern reasoning) is extremely low (5). The other two are easily average.

I'm not sure how to advise you further. Does he enjoy reading? The Waldorf school and philosophy might not be the best thing for his ability level.

It's too bad he was too young for math scores. You might consider retesting him once he is 6 (or later).

I lost sight of your original question. Is it for placement next year? Who did the MVPT? Were their followup recommendations from that? He does have a good sized gap from his crystalized scores to his visual-spatial type ones, and that could be meaningful.

Oh, and for someone else who might be able to chime in with some thoughts, this kid has what shows up as a VCI (high) to PRI (low) split on the WISC-IV.

Funny! Of course, I know he can read. He taught himself at about 3 1/2. The MVPT testing was done by an OT for the school district.

We are trying to figure out whether we should leave him at Waldorf so he can catch up a bit on the motor issues. The challenge is it's great for balancing the intellectual, physical and emotional capabilities of the child. Academically speaking, I don't think it will be engaging enough for our child.

Interestingly, they have recommended that he stay in Kindergarten for another year due to his age -- Waldorf wants all kids to be 7 in the first grade.

Just checking Amy! You didn't mention that in the first post, and it seems the school hasn't even taught him letters yet!!!! I thought maybe I was missing something.

I've read some things about Waldorf, and personally don't see how they can work for GT children. On the other hand, he doesn't "need" the academics, and could possibly thrive with whatever growth curve he's on at home there, benefiting more fully from a less structured program. What are your other options?

Other options would be the public school, LI School for the Gifted or Montessori - that's really it.

Average kindergartners are not spelling or writing. All his other GE's place him at or above first grade.
Why in the world are they suggesting a K repeat?
I don't know anything about Waldorf, so sorry if I am a bit ignorant about their policies.
But does it make sense to keep a kid in K who is already achieving at and above first grade? Because of his age? I don't like educational decisions made for no other reason than for age, but that's just me. I don't understand it.

Sorry if I'm missing something, I can be a bit dense.

Neato

I had the same thought, 'Neato. In fact, I scoffed aloud at the computer screen.

It never ceases to amaze me when schools want GT kids to repeat a grade for reasons that seem so patently stupid.

Not to be blunt or anything... Sorry, rough week, so I'm in a cut-to-the-chase mood.

If I am not mistaken, The Waldorf school doctrine is very age driven. For example, they believe that children should not learn to read until they have lost their baby teeth (6 or 7 years old).

Before we get too far off topic, let's go back to the VCI/PRI type split question. I know it's fairly common, but our only split goes the other way, and I can't really speak from experience.

Thoughts?

Not sure what you were looking for Dottie. All my kids have VCI>PRI with varying splits from <10 to 20 points. Since I don't have any experience with the other direction, I'm not sure that what that would look like, but for us, the VCI showed up as very early reading (two of mine self-taught fluent reading at two), and extensive desire to explore the world through reading -- encyclopedias, dictionaries, science fact books, sports almanacs -- anything with facts in it. They were never big into puzzles. I remember thinking filling out the DYS application that I had nothing to say about puzzle questions. They played with US map puzzles at 3 or 4, but focused on memorizing all the states and capitals and relationships and seemed quite uninterested in the puzzle part.

J

My DD has VCI=PRI+25. Gratified, your description fits her to a T. She started reading at 3 (begged me to teach her), loves books, maps, etc. She is not very interested in puzzles. Her PRI was probably depressed a little due to visual/motor problems affecting things like the block design. Her math achievement is higher that what you would expect from her PRI.

Hi Cathy --

I'm so glad you said "[h]er math achievement is higher that what you would expect from her PRI" so I can address a question that's been bugging me.

I've been trying to figure out what the relationship between math AT and PRI is supposed to be?? I guess I had a naive assumption that those things went together, but that doesn't seem to be the case for my kids. The two early readers with the biggest VCI/PRI splits have ceiling scores on math AT and a few year subject acceleration in math. They have a general obsession with the topic causing square root dinner conversations, mental calculations of the number of seconds before the bus comes, etc. But PRI and math relate somehow, don't they? I just had this same "conversation" earlier this week offlist, but I guess I don't get what PRI tests. I'm fairly certain, based on our experience, that it doesn't have much to do with math achievement, at least in the younger years.

J

Per Amy's first post, her child scored very low (1st percentile) on some visual-perceptual test, and the score most similar to PRI is below the mean, with a subtest of 5. This is the area in which my kids all excel, so it's not my expertise.

With the MUCH higher knowledge (VCI-ish) score, that's quite a gap. It's 47 points (+3 standard deviations) on paper. I know others have more advice on things like visual remediation and other VMI type skills, that can hopefully throw in some thoughts.

Sometimes splits just reflect different strengths, but others can indicate problems that may be treated, or at least strengthened.

I think that issue needs to be addressed along with the best educational placement for his very obvious strengths. I didn't want to digress down the "What's wrong with that school" path without trying at least to refocus!

Ah, J snuck a post in there on me! I too started out my test data process assuming that PRI and math ability went together. This was absolutely the case for my oldest, whose scores were highest in those two areas on both the WISC and the AT.

DS seems more even keeled, but definitely has math peaks. His PRI did not reflect that, but we had other "issues" with that testing.

FWIW, I think PRI strengths are more likely to pan out in advanced maths, as well as really helping out kids who might be weaker in verbal areas. My DD11 is like that, although in time, her verbal areas are really developing considerably.

I'm finding too that kids who are lop-sided tend to fair better overall if their verbal skills are the stronger of the two. I guess there's something to be said for "talking" your way through a problem.

I have a friend whose son tests very average and even low in AT (LD issues at play). However....he has a rocket high PRI with a 19 in Matrix Reasoning! He's only 9, but I do look forward in seeing how his "profile" pans out with time.

I'm not sure the experts even really know for sure what all these different tests are saying.

Oh, and keep in mind the HUGE difference between a PRI that's lower than VCI but still quite good and a PRI that is in the average and below range!

(I'm thinking DD13's "great" PRI is probably at the same level as J's -10-20 point scores, ROFL!)

I'm not sure, but the impression I have is that the PRI subtests are designed to test logical reasoning and problem solving type skills. Those subtests also seem to be more visually loaded. The psychologist explained to me that DD's weaknesses in the visual/motor area showed up more in the block design because it is purely an abstract visual puzzle. For the subtests that have pictorial representations, DD was able to use her verbal brain to help her manipulate those concepts. She scored higher on those subtests. She scored highest in the verbal subtests where she gave an oral answer to a verbal question.

I think it's really interesting to take a peek into your child's brain and get an idea of how things work in there! Especially since my DD's thinking style is different from my own. It helps me figure out ways to explain things to her when my way of understanding doesn't make sense to her.

This discussion on the relationship of PRI to math skills reminds me of the recent studies linking the complexity of preschooler's storys to their later math skills: science news article on that. My take-away is that our understanding of the relationships between skill domains is incomplete.

(Beg pardon for always being only marginally on topic, if not completely off!)

I was just pondering this very question ie how is PRI related to math ability?

Since math (or any academic skill for that matter) is a complex process I think there must be interplay between verbal and visual concepts in order for a person to "get" a math concept and be able to apply it. You're right, you can't just break these things down into VCI or PRI.

On no evidence whatsoever, I've started to think about this similarly. While obviously I agree that math is quite complex, I've seen lists of v-s descriptions that describe verbal types as learning algebra easily and v-s types as geometry inclined. I would think that in geometry or graph-heavy math areas, the ability to visualize in 3D and manipulate spaces mentally reflected by PRI would be useful. But maybe it's not even useful to try to break it up that much since it's trying to separate out the components of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. At the same time, I find the brain endlessly fascinating and the unique mixture of traits in each person pretty astonishing, so I could think about this all day.



No way! Impostor syndrome is alive and well . . . . . but unnecessary! All of us with the very young kids are just guessing at the future, but you are already there. Your kids achieve at high levels, which means the IQ no longer has as much meaning. You have the real deal as opposed to potential that may turn out . . . . who knows??

J

Hi Amy,
I would certianly check out LI school for the gifted, as I've heard good things about them. I have never actually gone to a Waldorf school, but I know folks who have, and have asked a lot of questions.

Here's what I think are the pros of staying with current situation and doing K for another year:
1) Since they aren't pushing the children to learn to read, he won't have to sit through dull letter learning lessons.
2) Waldorf has wonderful physical therapy-like lessons integrated into the classroom (eurythmy?) that would be valuable for his weak visual processing, although they may not be 'enough' by themselves.
3) Waldorf is wonderful at stimulating imagination and life skills which your son may enjoy tremendously.
4) If the program is half day, then he has a wonderful chance to enjoy agemates, and still has plenty of time to learn on his own at home with you.

Cons:
If it's a full day program it may be to tiring to leave him energy to learn afterwards.
He may not enjoy the imaginative/creative atmousphere.
LI School of Gifted may be a much better fit
What do you do the next year?

We have however found that worrying about 'next year' isn't very useful, as so much changes!

Best Wishes,
Grinity

By the way Kcab, thanks for the very interesting article link! I can't lose on this one. Any day now DD11 (my creative story telling preschooler who can see into frog's brains) should catch up to my less imaginitive DS9, who is already pretty far out there in math, .

I was going to LOL, then remembered my own mathiness (or lack thereof) at age 11 .... suffice to say that things do change.

If you figure out 11 yo girls, please let me know! Having been one doesn't seem to help my insight much.

Now there's a topic for research! FWIW, DD13 sailed through these years pretty easily, but with DD11, I hear all about those interesting dynamics, changes, etc. Oh to be a fly on the wall in a typical 5th grade classroom/lunchroom/recess!

Actually, back to the article...DD11 really does have some good mathematical abilities. She tests sky high in the perceptual realm, and her teachers seem to think she's brilliant with math. But on paper....well, she certainly seems to lack DS9's abilities from my point of view. She is more of a "big picture" person, and the little details along the way do hang her up some. DS9 probably shows the most talent because he's very strong in most modes of learning, where she actually struggles in some.

Anyway, that brings up another interesting situation. Imagine sitting in a room hearing how fantastic your kid is in math, when your other (younger!) kid seems to be light years beyond. This was expecially frustrating those early years, when we were still fighting for accommodations. In hindsight, it seems the school is willing to label a child as "brilliant" only when it's within their range of "acceptable" abilities, kwim? Cross that line and they'll all just scratch their heads and look away, and hope to find some meaningless low score that they can jump on to talk about.

Oh, and one of the first teachers who thought DD11 was "brilliant" was her 1st grade teacher, based on DD's ability to "retell" a story. The actual stories were VERY brief and the rest of us were wondering "what story?", yet DD11 could talk forever on the subtle nuances of a picture book with very few words.

It will be very interesting for me to see how my three pan out with the higher maths, especially in light of their stronger visual/spatial skills.

Again, interesting article...if you haven't read it, check it out!

That sounds like it would feel weird, like living in a different reality from the teachers. Anyway, your DD11 sounds fun and it will be interesting to see how math works out longer term.