1 / 17

Progress Monitoring and RtI: Questions from the Field

Progress Monitoring Role and RtI. Primary method of evaluating student outcomes of instructional interventionTypical methods use General Outcomes MeasurementMost common is CBMEstablish expected rates of gainEstablish expected levels of performanceOutcomes used to establish response to intervent

shadow
Download Presentation

Progress Monitoring and RtI: Questions from the Field

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. Progress Monitoring and RtI: Questions from the Field Edward S. Shapiro Director, Center for Promoting Research to Practice Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

    2. Progress Monitoring Role and RtI Primary method of evaluating student outcomes of instructional intervention Typical methods use General Outcomes Measurement Most common is CBM Establish expected rates of gain Establish expected levels of performance Outcomes used to establish response to intervention

    3. Questions From the Field What should be the expected level of improvement to set goals? Are these measures linked to state assessments? What do I use as a valid measure of reading beyond 5th grade instructional level (and for those situations where ORF does not reflect reading performance)? What do I use for PM in math? What do I use for PM at middle and secondary levels?

    4. PA – statewide effort to establish expected levels of performance for students with LD 3 year effort Extensive training lead by PaTTAN and IU Statewide data collection and reporting Outcomes establish average rates of improvement across students with LD

    5. Outcomes of PM in PA 2004 -2005 1,963 special education students monitored 149 districts, 24 IU’s LD = 1,502 (76.5%); SED = 88 (4.5%); MR = 223 (11.4%) 1,654 (84.3%) = reading; 599 = math computation (30.5%) ; 60 = math concepts (3.1%) FOR LD: 1,277 Reading; 447 Math computation; 46 = math concepts

    6. Comparison of PA PM to Fuchs Study in Reading-Instructional Level

More Related