Betsy Trainer

Educational Achievement Report Rationale

The Educational Achievement Report (EAR) was written after the formal administration and
scoring of the Woodcock Johnson III test. The process started with student and parent
interviews, listening to and valuing their view of the students academic progress thus far. After
creating a comfortable rapport with the student, the Woodcock Johnson III was administered in a
professional manner. The testing requirements for each subtest were strictly followed. Ample
preparation prior to administration of the test was necessary to ensure the testing ran smoothly
reaching all basal and ceiling and adhering to all time limitations. The administration
demonstrates the practice of establishing a positive learning environment and conducting an
ethically appropriate test. Once the test was administered the scores were tabulated and entered
into the software to get the normalized results. The results along with statistics generated from
the raw scores become part of the EAR. The report interprets and summarizes the findings from
the assessment. It also lists any educational recommendations incorporating all the information
gathered as part of the process. This demonstrates the importance of recognizing the strengths
and areas of needs for the student and ability for all students to learn. Through completion of the
EAR, I demonstrated mastery in the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) professional
standard 1, 4, and 6.
CEC Standard 1 addresses the learner development and individual learning differences.
Through completion of my EAR I demonstrated mastery of this CEC standard prior and during
the administration of the Woodcock Johnson III and then while analyzing the results. Through
the pre-test interview with K and her parent I was able to start to get to know her as a student. If
the student being tested were one at my school, a thorough record review and discussions with
other school professionals would have been done. During the assessment success was partially as

Betsy Trainer
a result of creating a comfortable but professional testing environment with limited distractions.
Providing for breaks between subtests was also necessary. The results of the test highlight
learner differences, areas of strengths and areas of weaknesses. Again, if this were a true case I
would use all of these factors to suggest interventions specific to her development and learning
differences.
CEC Standard 4 addresses instructional pedagogy, specifically assessments. Through
completion of my EAR, I demonstrated mastery of this CEC standard by gaining a knowledge of
the Woodcock Johnson III standardized test, the testing requirements and the implications of the
results. While administering the test the basal was always determined and the ceiling was never
reached prior to ending the subtest. Understanding the results, including the standard scores,
percentiles, confidence bands, was necessary to interpret the classifications to summarize the
results. Knowledge of the purpose of subtests and the groupings of the subtest for broad scores
further enhanced the analysis. The results of the test were straightforward to interpret due to the
preparation beforehand and the documentation throughout the process. Ultimately, a successful
Woodcock Johnson III test was planned for, administered, scored and summarized with
recommendations.
CEC Standard 6 addresses the professional learning and ethical practices and through
completion of my EAR I demonstrated mastery of this standard. I ensured a successful
administration by studying each subtest, highlighting the important criteria for each subtest so
there would be no confusion on my part while giving instructions, looking for basal or ceiling or
setting the time limits. During the afternoon K. stayed focused, continued to try her best and
remained pleasant throughout the testing as a result of creating the appropriate setting and
professional manner that was used. After the test was completed, a professional report was

Betsy Trainer
completed using the results of the test and applying an unbiased interpretation of the results.
Preparing for the test was not difficult for me. However, I did find it difficult to not
provide feedback throughout the test. I was able to give general positive reinforcements but had
to limit my input to that. As a classroom teacher we are prompting or scaffolding on a regular
basis. Even if it is a quick debrief after a class assessment, I am available for feedback. As a
middle school math teacher testing a high school student I learned a lot about the examinee. Her
development in reading and written language skills seemed much greater than her development
in math skills from my middle school students. Her perseverance was much stronger than I
anticipated. I would not say she found the activity fun, but she still seemed to strive to do her
best. The testing was a neither a positive or negative experience for her. The results of formal
testing along with a thorough case review if done properly can help guide the academic
instruction for the student(s). Even if the findings do not result in an IEP, the educational
recommendations should match the strengths and areas of needs with instructional strategies to
benefit the student being assessed. Ultimately, the impact should only be a positive one on the
academic progress of students.