1 / 35

Development of a Math Screening Assessment on a Districtwide Basis

Development of a Math Screening Assessment on a Districtwide Basis. Mike Jacobsen-Assessment and Curriculum Director Andy McGrath-Principal Glacier Middle School White River School District 360-829-3820 mjacobse@whiteriver.wednet.edu. Washington Educational Research Association

onofre
Download Presentation

Development of a Math Screening Assessment on a Districtwide Basis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Development of a Math Screening Assessment on a Districtwide Basis Mike Jacobsen-Assessment and Curriculum Director Andy McGrath-Principal Glacier Middle School White River School District 360-829-3820 mjacobse@whiteriver.wednet.edu Washington Educational Research Association Annual Conference December 5-7 2007

  2. By The End of This Presentation You Will: • Understand how the district implements a K-10 CBM reading assessment system • Understand how the WRSD developed a math screener • District-wide focus • Establish a committee • Pilot process • Full implementation • Fall, winter & spring data 06-07 • Next steps

  3. Basic Definitions • CBM=Curriculum Based Measurement • Developed Initially at University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities • Measures students progress in basic skills using existing curriculum • Psychometrically sound • ORF=Oral Reading Fluency • What is measured is students’ ability to read out loud, accurately and fluidly • DIBELS=Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills • Researchers from the University of Oregon coined the phrase

  4. What is CBM? • Standard, simple, short duration fluency measures of reading, spelling, written expression and mathematics computation • WRSD Reading CBM is very similar to DIBELS with one exception • WRSD Math Screener is different than DIBELS in math • In reading CBM is oral reading fluency • Measures “vital signs” of student achievement • Academic thermometer

  5. Big Ideas About CBM • Extensive data supporting validity of use as a measure of basic skills • Principle use is in formative evaluation • Sensitive to changes in performance due to instruction • Easy to use within classrooms • Brief • Repeatable

  6. ORF and Other Reading Tests • 1999- 3rd Grade Qualitative Reading Inventory to 3rd Grade ORF=.89 • 1999-3r Grade ITBS to 3rd Grade ORF=.64 • 1999-2th Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 2nd Grade ORF=.84 • 1999-3rd Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 3r Grade ORF=.77 • 1999-4th Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 4th Grade ORF=.64 • 1999-5th Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 5th Grade ORF=.86

  7. ORF and WASL Relationships • 1998- 4th Grade WASL to 5th Grade ORF=.70 • 1999-4th Grade WASL to 4th Grade ORF=.51 • 2003-6th Grade ORF to 7th Grade WASL=.68 • 2000-4th Grade ORF to 4th Grade WASL=.66 • 2002-4th Grade ORF to 4th Grade WASL=.65

  8. ORF and WASL Relationships

  9. CBM ORF/WASL

  10. Why Assess Computational Fluency? • “Many of the difficulties children have in arithmetic result from not understanding number ideas supposedly learning at an earlier time” • Engelhart, Ashlock & Wiebe, 1984 • “In most cases the precision and fluency in the execution of the skills are the requisite vehicles to convey the conceptual understanding.” • H. Wu, 1999

  11. White River School District Assessment Process • Implemented during the 98-99 school year for K-6 Reading • 6th-8th grade added 2002 • 9th/10th grade added 2005 • Implemented during the 2006-2007 school year for 1-10 Math screener • Kindergarten students, initial sound fluency, letter names and segmenting phonemes • Grades 1-10 orally read passages from appropriate grade level material • Conducted three times per year during September, January and May

  12. Background of Development of the Math Screener: District Learning Improvement Planning • Established Fall of 2005 • Approximately 30 members, teachers, building administrators, central office administrators, parents and school board members • Each building had a stipend position for a teacher who served as DLIP coordinator • Met monthly during the 05/06 school year • The first meeting was on structure and goals, research on effective schools and role of the district

  13. Background: District Learning Improvement Planning • Established Fall of 2005 • Approximately 30 members, teachers, building administrators, central office administrators, parents and school board members • Each building had a stipend position for a teacher who served as DLIP coordinator • Met monthly during the 05/06 school year • The first meeting was on structure and goals, research on effective schools and role of the district

  14. Background: District Learning Improvement Planning • The second meeting focused on district-wide information using the data carousel format • WASL trend data-desegregated • ITBS • CBM • Demographics • Safe and Civil Surveys • Nine Characteristics • Healthy Youth Survey • Sports and Arts program participation • Curriculum alignment • Professional development

  15. Background: District Learning Improvement Planning • Used data from the carousel process to identify three major focus areas: • Professional development • Curriculum alignment-math • Math • Each focus area had co-chairs • Every member of the district learning improvement team was on one of the focus area committees • Outcome oriented

  16. Math Committee • District Math TOSA Kathie Ross and Andy McGrath Co-chaired the Math Committee • Goal: To produce a math assessment that will reliably predict a student’s success on the WASL (not diagnostic) • To produce an assessment that can be given in 20-30 minutes and can be graded in a timely manner without added cost

  17. Math Committee • To Achieve This Goal: • We added teachers to the committee from each level primary, intermediate, middle and high school • Committee Makeup • 3 Administrators • 7 Teachers • 1 Central Office • 2 Parents

  18. Math Committee • ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT • Committee met for about 2 months discussing the makeup of the assessment: • Assessment Structure: • 20 Total Questions • 12 Computation • 8 Applied Problems • Single Number Answer • Reading fluency assessment already established in district • Reviewed Fuchs and Fuchs-Monitoring Basic Skills Progress-2nd Ed. • Reviewed Ken Howell’s et all- Multilevel Academic Skills Inventory-Revised • Next step split subcommittee into three groups: • Elementary • Middle • High School

  19. Math Committee-Assessment Cont. • The Groups using the GLEs as a guide developed a draft assessment for each grade level • Assessments were brought back to full committee to be discussed and edited • Developed assessments for grades 2 – 10 • Assessment give three times a year in conjunction with reading assessment

  20. Sample Page 4th Grade Computation

  21. Sample Page 4th Grade Applied Problems

  22. Pilot Process • IMPLEMENTATION • An assessment for each grade level completed by April 2005 • Piloted last May with volunteer classrooms at least two per grade level • Pilot results to Assessment Office analyze math assessment and reading fluency to see if this would be a good predictor of WASL success • If the assessment proved to be an accurate predictor of WASL success then implement district wide Fall 06

  23. Pilot Process • Manila envelope provided to each pilot teacher • Directions for Administration • Instructions for Scoring • Student Response Sheets • Test Key • Copies of student response forms provided to each teacher • 624 students grades 1-8 participated • Statistically strong relationships with WASL math and spring oral reading fluency demonstrated

  24. Pilot Results

More Related