Curriculum Based Measurements and Response to Intervention

1. Curriculum Based Measurements and Response to Intervention Loretta Benenati WSU-Vancouver

2. How did it happen? • A team, including our building administrator and Director of Special Education attended the Reading Summit at the University of Washington in Tacoma in 2005. • Wayne Callender spoke about RtI and CBM and “…everything he said made sense.” • Because we are such a small district it was easy to implement.

3. What were the selling points? • Our team was most excited about the possibility of eliminating the discrepancy model when qualifying students for Special Education Services. • General Education Students would be able to receive instruction in the Special Education setting, when appropriate. Special Education became a service rather than a place. • There would be a system for effectively identifying and monitoring struggling students. No child would “slip through the cracks.”

4. How do we use CBM data? • CBM data dictates reading groups for our Walk to Read reading block. • CBM data determines who receives a second dose of reading. • CBM data tells us who will attend the Read Naturally Lab, as well as when they are able to graduate from Read Naturally. • CBM data is used in teacher evaluation.

5. What does progress monitoring look like for us? • All students who are in the bottom quartile are receiving interventions. • Students are assessed, using the Aimsweb Oral Reading Fluency CBM, every two weeks. • If a student reaches benchmark on three consecutive data points, they are graduated from interventions.

6. What was the timeline for implementation? • Our team attended the conference in October. In January, the entire district performed a benchmarking oral reading fluency CBM. • The first set of data was presented to the Administrative Team a week later. • The information provided on graphs, efficiently and effectively identifying the three tiers, resulted in complete buy-in from all administrators. • Within two weeks of the first benchmarking, interventions were being provided to all students below the 25th percentile. • The second data point showed a correlation supporting interventions, along with shrinking numbers of students in the red and yellow tiers.

7. What systems and programs are used? • Aimsweb materials are used for progress monitoring and benchmarking. • We use the Hasbrouck and Tindal table of fluency norms to determine whether or not our students are at benchmark. • Read Naturally and various SRA materials, including Reading Mastery, are used for interventions.

8. How do CBMs tie in with RtI for us? • Our RtI Team meets twice each month. • We look at CBM data from progress monitoring to identify students requiring additional or altered interventions. • After each of our three benchmarking dates we review the data for all areas in which we use CBM scores: Reading, Writing and Math • The RtI Team problem solves on any student presenting in the lowest 10th percentile. • RtI team is able to help design and implement strategies to prevent a student from being unnecessarily referred to Special Education.

9. What do the experts say? “When teachers use systematic progress monitoring to track their students’ progress in reading, mathematics, or spelling, they are better able to identify students in need of additional or different forms of instruction, they design stronger instructional programs, and their students achieve better.” Fuchs and Fuchs (2002)

10. What does the research say to teachers? • Progress monitoring, using CBM scores, tracks the pace of learning for a student. If the rate of improvement is not adequate to meet the annual goal, instruction can be modified. • Previously, teachers were only assessing whether a student had acquired a specific set of skills. This allows us to actually predict a student’s ultimate success in a given period.

11. What does the research say about uses? • We can improve an individual student’s program, as in special education, where CBMs and progress monitoring got their start. • We can predict performance on high-stakes assessments. • We can identify students who are at risk for academic failure. • We can use the data to drive our instruction. • We can identify students for special education without the antiquated discrepancy model.

12. K W L

13. IT WORKS! By following student success through progress monitoring and implementing interventions where indicated, we have the following numbers to support our work: What has the data told us?

14. Now what? • Continue with our excellent work in Reading, with a goal of 85% of our students at or above benchmark. • Become as proficient in Math and Writing. • Expand our RtI process to more effectively deal with behaviors and evaluate the impact on academics, largely using the CBM data • PBIS is our ultimate goal, realizing that our academic scores will increase with improved discipline.

15. Sources • Deno, Stanley L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 3-12. • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement: Describing competence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treatment nonresponders. Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 64–84. • Madelaine, A. & Wheldall, K. (2004). Curriculumbased measurement of reading: Recent advances. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 5782. • Safer, N. & Fleischman, S. (2005). Research matters: How student progress monitoring improves instruction. Educational Leadership, 62, 81-83. Much of the information came from an interview with Principal Todd Carper, who first brought CBMs, Progress Monitoring and RtI to our district.