Building a Strong Foundation for Reading Progress Monitoring

1. Scientifically Based Progress Monitoring in Reading Using Curriculum-Based Measurement and Early Literacy Measures in a 3-Tiered Model

2. Illinois ASPIREAlliance for School-based Problem-solving & Intervention Resources in Education Project Goal : Establish and implement a coordinated, regionalized system of personnel development that will increase school systems’ capacity to provide early intervening services [with an emphasis on reading], aligned with the general education curriculum, to at-risk students and students with disabilities, as measured by improved student progress and performance. Illinois ASPIRE is a State Personnel Development Grant-Funded Initiative of ISBE. All Funding is From Federal Sources.

3. Illinois ASPIREAlliance for School-based Problem-solving & Intervention Resources in Education Objectives: • Deliver research-based professional development and technical assistance in Problem-Solving Service Delivery Systems, Response-to-Intervention (RTI), scientifically based reading instruction, and Standards Aligned Classrooms (SAC). • Increase the participation of parents in decision-making across district sites. • Incorporate professional development content into higher education general and special education preservice & graduate level curricula. • Evaluate the effectiveness of project activities. Illinois ASPIRE is a State Personnel Development Grant-Funded Initiative of ISBE. All Funding is From Federal Sources.

4. BUILDING a Foundation for Problem Solving Implementation Requires: Better Tools Better Training More Support for Teachers, Parents, and Students to Meet the Needs of ALL Students

5. Our Blueprint • Build a Solid Foundation Through Self Study • Know What Is Important to Get Done the First Year • Know What the Priorities Are for Years 2-4

6. Build a Foundation withSelf Study • Describe your existing Systems of Supports, including Teams, and Team and Individual Professional Roles and Functions • Describe your existing Academic and Behavior Interventions: Are they scientifically based? • Describe your existing Progress Monitoring and Universal Screening Systems: Are they scientifically based? • Identify Assessment Tools and Practices That Are NOT scientifically based

7. Building Blocks: Year 1 • Build Your Scientifically Based Data System for Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring (CBM) • Teach and Ensure Understanding of Foundational Concepts and Vocabulary • Define and Teach Your Standard Problem-Solving Process • Build Your Leadership and Staff Development Plan • Build More Effective Teams with Teachers in Mind

8. Tools for the Job • Problem-Solving Self Study Instruments • Scientifically Based Progress Monitoring Tools (CBM and Members of the CBM “Family” like DIBELS) • Standard Problem Solving Tasks and Decisions • Scientifically Based Academics and Behavior Interventions • Academic Problem Identification Interview (Based on Instructional Planning Form) • Behavior Problem Identification Interview Based on a Functional Behavior Assessment • Fidelity of Implementation Process • Systematic Observation

9. Big Ideas • Formative Evaluation, Student Progress Monitoring During Instruction and Making Adjustments, Is One of the Most Powerful Tools Teachers Have • Teachers Have LOTS Of Ways of Testing Students in Reading • Not All These Ways of Testing Students Are Scientifically Based • Use Scientifically Based Progress Monitoring--Members of the Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)“Family”

10. The Big Ideas for Preventing Reading Failure in Grades K-3:Converging Evidence • Increase the quality, consistency, and reach of instruction in every K-3 classroom • Universal Screening and Timely and Valid Assessments of Reading Growth for Progress Monitoring • Provide more intensive interventions to “catch up” the struggling readers Modified from J. Torgeson, www.fcrr.org

11. What Reading Test(s) Do You Use • State Tests? • Curriculum-Embedded Tests? • MAPS • DRA? • DRI? • QRI? • IRI? • Gates? • Woodcock Johnson? • DIBELS? • CBM?

12. Name Purpose (Screening, Instructional Planning, Progress Monitoring, Program Evaluation Evidence for Use? Time and Cost Efficient? What Reading Test Do You Use?

13. No Systematic Progress Monitoring-The “Inter-Ocular” Test Everyone Progresses Except the Lowest Performer, Who May or May Not Be Progressing; Misses Students Who Aren’t Progressing Regardless of Skill Level Data Hoarding Collects the Data, But Isn’t Used to Make Decisions; Like End-of-Week Spelling Tests; Everyone Goes to the Next Unit Uses the Wrong Test Usually Uses a High Stakes Test AFTER Instruction Mastery Monitoring (MM) Testing on Subskills or at End of Units; General Outcome Measurement (GOM) Testing on a Single Skill Indicator of a Larger Achievement Area Types of Progress Monitoring

14. Grade Placement Grade Equivalent Years Below Percentile 2 1.9 .1 25 3 2.4 .6 25 4 3.1 .9 25 5 3.9 1.1 25 6 4.5 1.5 25 7 5.3 1.7 25 High Stakes Tests and Bad Scores Mislead About Progress

15. What is Progress Monitoring? • Progress monitoring is a scientifically based practice that teachers can use to evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction • …the use of progress monitoring results in more efficient and appropriately targeted instructional techniques…that move all students to faster attainment • Progress monitoring is a significantly underutilized practice that works From the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center

16. We Should Use Scientifically Based Progress Monitoring Tools www.studentprogress.org

17. The National Progress Monitoring Center Reviews Tests to See If They Meet Standards

18. Reliability Quality of Good Test Validity Quality of Good Test Sufficient Number of Alternate Forms and of Equal Difficulty Essential for Progress Monitoring Evidence of Sensitivity to Improvement or to Effects of intervention Critical for Progress Monitoring Benchmarks of Adequate Progress and Goal Setting Critical for Progress Monitoring Rates of Improvement are Specified Critical for Progress Monitoring Evidence of Impact on Teacher Decision Making instruction or Student Achievement; Critical for Formative Evaluation Evidence of Improved Instruction and Student Achievement; Gold Standard Standards for Scientifically Based Progress Monitoring Have Been Established

19. Most Tools that Meet Standards are Members of the Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) “Family”

20. Reading Percentile Ranks When CBM is Used Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.

21. CBM Family Members Also Meet the Scientific Standards of Reading First Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM), a standardized 1-min sample of oral reading where the number of WRC is counted Has been deemed Sufficient for Use in Screening, Progress Monitoring, and Outcome for Grades 1-3 and in subsequent grades The Secretary of Education’s Leadership Academy Assessment Committee Executive Summary of Final Report on Reading First Reading Assessment Analysis (Kame’enui, 2002)

22. Area Measure Comment Reading Maze CBM; 3 minute silent reading multiple-choice cloze test using from Standard Passages No. of Items Correct Best for Intermediate Grades and Older; Corroborative Tool Written Expression Written Expression CBM- WE CBM; 3 minutes writing, given a standard story starter Total Words Written; CorrectWriting Sequences Useful for Screening and Progress Monitoring of Basic Writing Skills Spelling Spelling CBM S-CBM; 2 minutes writing orally dictated words from standard grade-level spelling lists Correct Letter Sequences Very Sensitive to Between Person Differences and Among Persons Math Math Computation CBM (M-CBM) Students write answers to standard computational problems for 2-4 minutes Correct Digits Useful for Screening and Progress Monitoring of Basic Math Computation Skills Math Math Application CBM (CBM-Apps) Students write answers to standard application problems for 4 minutes Correct Problems Useful for Screening and Progress Monitoring of Math Application CBM And RTI Requires MORE than Just Oral Reading and Early Literacy Assessment

23. Progress Monitoring is Aligned with a 3-Tier Model Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.

24. Most Intensive (and Likely Most Expensive) Evidence-Based Programs that Work for STUDENTS Who Need More: CBM Intensive Monitoring 1x Per Week More Intensive (and Likely More Expensive) Evidence-Based Programs that Works for GROUPS Who Need More: CBM Strategic Monitoring 1x Per Month Evidence-Based Assessment that Works for MOST: CBM Benchmarking 3x Per Year How CBM is Used Systematically in 3-Tiers

25. Where Did CBM Come From? Funded by Federal Research to Fill a Void in IEPs and Progress Monitoring to Give Educators Simple, Accurate, Efficient Ways to Write IEP Goals and Monitor Progress Principal Architect: Stanley Deno, University of Minnesota Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232. Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and alternative special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1-17). NY: Guilford. Deno, S. L. (2002). Problem-solving as best practice. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 37-55). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192. Deno, S. L. (2005). Problem-solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for Intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp. 10-40). New York, NY: Guilford. Deno, S. L., Marston, D., Shinn, M. R., & Tindal, G. (1983). Oral reading fluency: A simple datum for scaling reading disability. Topics in Learning and Learning Disability, 2, 53-59. Graduates (Lynn Fuchs, Doug Marston, Mark Shinn, Gerald Tindal) and Others (Doug Fuchs, Roland Good)

26. The Most Important Progress Monitoring Tool: Oral Reading (R-CBM or DORF) It was a pretty good composition. I felt proud knowing it was the best one at my school. After I’d read it five times, I was impatient to start reading it out loud. I followed the book’s directions again. First I read the composition out loud without trying to sound impressive, just to hear what the words sounded like. I did that a couple of times. Then I moved over to my full-length mirror and read the composition out loud in front of it a few times. At first I just read it. Then I practiced looking up and making eye contact. Of course I was making eye contact with myself, and that felt pretty silly, but that was what the book said to do. Then I went on to reading the composition to an audience. This consisted of my favorite teddy bear and Amanda, my best doll, the only one I couldn’t bear to give up when I outgrew dolls last year. Amy, A Typical 4th Grade Student

27. Phonemic Awareness ALL These Skills General Reading Skill Alphabetic Understanding Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension What Does R-CBM Measure? Beware the Trap of the BOXES- Low Scores “in the Box” Mean You Must TEACH the Things in the Box

28. Reads Efficiently √ Reads Accurately--Greater than 95% √ Reads with Expression and Prosody √ Has Effective Strategy for Word They Don’t Know √ Reading Errors Preserve Meaning Rather than DISTORT Meaning √ Engages in Comprehension Self-Monitoring (Self Corrects) √ Look for the Qualitative Features of Good (or Poor) Reading

29. No Significant Discrepancy Educational Need Amy’s Educational Need is Measured by thePERFORMANCE DISCREPANCY

30. A Different Level of Reading Skill It was a pretty good composition. I felt proud knowing it was the best one at my school. After I’d read it five times, I was impatient to start reading it out loud. I followed the book’s directions again. First I read the composition out loud without trying to sound impressive, just to hear what the words sounded like. Billy, Another 4th Grader

31. More Severe Educational Need Billy’s Educational Need Significant Performance Discrepancy

32. Reads Efficiently NO Reads Accurately--Greater than 95% NO Reads with Expression and Prosody NO Has Effective Strategy for Word They Don’t Know NO Reading Errors Preserve Meaning Rather than DISTORT Meaning NO Engages in Comprehension Self-Monitoring (Self Corrects) NO Look for the Qualitative Features of Good (or Poor) Reading

33. •Life Experience • Content Knowledge • Activation of Prior Knowledge • Knowledge about Texts • Motivation & Engagement • Active Reading Strategies • Monitoring Strategies • Fix-Up Strategies • Oral Language Skills • Knowledge of Language Structures • Vocabulary • Cultural Influences Language Fluency* We Refer to It as General Reading Skills Reading Comprehension Metacognition Knowledge • Prosody • Automaticity/Rate • Accuracy • Decoding • Phonemic Awareness The Bigger Deficits Here And Here Oral Reading is the EASIEST to Measure--Let’s Get This Down and Add MORE Tools And the MOST Unmotivated Here For Some, the Hardest Thing They’ll Ever Do The Easiest Thing To Teach The Longer It Takes... *modified slightly from presentations by Joe Torgesen, Ph.D. Co-Director, Florida Center for Reading Research; www.fcrr.org

34. Keep in MindCBM is a Standardized Test • Materials for Oral Reading Probe • 1. Unnumbered Student Copy • 2. Numbered Examiner Copy • 3. Stopwatch • 4. Tape Recorder • Directions • 1. Place the student copy in front of the student • 2. Shield the numbered copy so that the student cannot see what you score • 3. Say • When I say begin, start reading aloud at the top of the page. Read across the page. Try to read each word. If you come to a word you don’t know, I’ll tell it to you. Be sure to do your best reading. Are there any questions? • 4. Say Begin and start your stopwatch when the student says the first word...

35. Remember These Things about “WHY” CBM • It’s Doable with Efficient and Short Accurate Tests • It’s Standardized • We Can Have Confidence in What is Measured • It’s Curriculum-Independent • Give Us Qualitative in Addition to Quantitative Information • It’s Reasonably Authentic • It’s Sensitive to Differences Among Individuals and Student Improvement in Short Periods of Time

36. Most Intensive (and Likely Most Expensive Evidence-Based Reading Programs that Work for STUDENTS Who Need More: CBM Intensive Monitoring 1x Per Week More Intensive (and Likely More Expensive Evidence-Based Reading Programs that Work for GROUPS Who Need More: CBM Strategic Monitoring 1x Per Month Evidence-Based Reading Assessment that Work for MOST: CBM Benchmarking 3x Per Year How CBM is Used Systematically in 3-Tiers

37. Monitoring Progress at Tier 1: Benchmark Assessment to Measure Educational Need and Benefit for All

38. Tier 1: General Education Benchmark Assessment

39. Tier 2: Strategic Monitoring of At Risk

40. Tier 3: Frequent Monitoring toward Individualized or IEP Goals

41. Monitoring a Specific Student’s RTI

42. Monitoring A Specific Student’s RTI

43. Use Benchmark for Universal Screening Universal Screening: 1. Proactively Enables Educational Needs to Be Assessed to Identify the Most Needy Students 2. Reduces the Need for Individual Student Referrals 3. Avoids Students “Slipping Through Cracks”

44. Use Benchmark for Universal Screening Two Approaches to Identifying Students: 1. Norm-Based Approaches to Identify the Most Needy Students 2. Standards-Based Approaches to Identify Intensity of Programs and Progress Monitoring Frequency

45. < 25th Tier 2 Candidates <10th Tier 3 Candidates A Norm-Based Approach

46. A Standards-Based ApproachRed = Highly Unlikely to Pass the State TestGreen = Highly Like to PassYellow = Uncertain to Pass

47. Implications of Standards-Based Universal Screening

48. Standards-Based Approaches and Universal Screening

49. At the Class Level

50. Practice Exercise