Is Suffolk reading test appropriate for DS2 with disparity between whole sentence and single word comprehension?

[KOKOagainandagain]

couldn't think of a snappier title.

DS2 has previously been assessed using the Salford reading test which involves reading increasingly complex sentences. ACE assessment by the SALT shows that there are around 3.5 standard deviations between sentence and single word comprehension. Despite not knowing the alphabet when he began school at 4.6 he had a Salford reading age of 7.6 at age 6.4.

The test has now been changed to the Suffolk reading test which is comprehension based (circling a choice of missing words to complete sentences). Reading age now matches chronological age.

I know that there will be variation in the tests but I am concerned that the Suffolk test will hide variation between DS2's strengths and weaknesses and the crude averaged out reading will make it appear that all is well.

Also in terms of calculating rate of progress in different parts of the curriculum the continual change of measuring tool means that comparison cannot be conducted. Would it be worth asking the school to use the Salford test in addition to the Suffolk test (in terms of laying a paper trail)? I may be being paranoid but I have encountered these tactics previously.

yes they need to use the same test to monitor progress
If they are introducing a new test to replace the Salford they should really use both for now
(neither are great tests to use to look at specific difficulties IMO)

thanks corny. According to the school's SEN policy DC should have RA and SA during the autumn and spring terms. Despite asking for this info (DS2 began reception on SA+) I have only been given the results of two different reading assessments from July and Oct 2012. DS2 has SLCN and is being assessed for ASD as there are numerous non-verbal/pragmatic social communication abnormalities.

It is proving difficult to get a true picture of academic progress using SATs levels as they are inconsisent and infrequent.

I know that this would be thrown back at us as a refusal to assess (same happened with DS1) and years can go by discussing the meaning of 'progress' with teachers so I want to cut short the discussion over semantics and make sure that when academic progress is claimed that this can be supported by objective data. DS1 was deemed to have made adequate progress but when I had the data I could prove regression. But the school have to collect the data. Hence the fun and games.

There is a very out of date version of the Salford test knocking around
( although it has been restandardised) which school may have used previously, in which case school may argue that the Suffolk is more accurate.