Good morning all,
In lines with my request for expert panelists, I was hoping to maybe generate some discussion and ideas regarding the concepts and practical use of an absolute level of skill to determine minimal proficiency (or even full mastery) in reading.
As a school psychologist, most of our assessment is completed using norm-referenced scores to report an individual's level of performance relative to same-age or same-grade peer groups. It seems that such reporting of this comparative level of performance might not tell the whole story regarding any particular individual's ability to function as an independent reader in society. I'm conceptualizing the utility of using an absolute level of performance that could be applied across age or grade that marks what particular skills an individual needs to possess in order to be a minimally proficient reader--an analogy would be something along the lines of "you must be this tall to ride the ride" except that "you must have these skills to be a reader."
I would be most open to some discussion or debate along these lines, and would appreciate if someone would like to share an argument and/or research results to help me refine this line of thinking. Any good anecdotes or better analogies that you all might be willing to share?
Thank you for your consideration,