1. Curriculum Based Evaluations Informed Decision Making Leads to Greater Student Achievement Margy Bailey 2006

2. Why do we evaluate student achievement?  Gathering Information For eligibility decision making For informed instruction  What gets measured gets done. What gets measured and fed back gets done well. (Schmoker, 2001)

3. Assessments: Traditional versus Curriculum-Based  Traditional Assessments Standardized commercial achievement tests Measure broad curriculum areas and/or skills  Curriculum-Based Evaluations (CBE) Local curriculum, direct observation and recording Measure specific skills presently being taught in the classroom, usually in basic skills

4. Characteristics of CBE  Measurement procedures assess students directly using the materials in which they are being instructed. This involves sampling items from the curriculum.  Administration of each measure is brief in duration (1-5 mins.).  Structured such that frequent and repeated measurement is possible and measures are sensitive to change.  Data are usually displayed graphically to allow monitoring of student performance.

5. Characteristics of CBE continued  Subject areas Math Reading Spelling Other areas  Grade levels Typical focus on elementary (K-3 or K-6) K-12

6. Origins in Special Education  Alternative to standardized norm-referenced measures  Eligibility and planning for special education  Integrating students with disabilities

7. Implications for General Curriculum  Monitoring progress of student in the general education curriculum  Formative evaluation of specific academic skills  Evaluating effectiveness of interventions  Information for making curriculum adjustments

8. Uses for CBE  General and special education classroom settings  Reading First  Big Ideas of Early Literacy  No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  Response To Intervention (RTI)

9. Features that differentiate CBE models  The purpose of the assessment  Research support for testing procedures and decision-making.

10. Curriculum-Based Evaluation Models and Tools  Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA)  Precision Teaching  Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)  AIMSWeb

11. Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA)  Applications: Evaluation and instructional planning  Development: Teacher made  Administration and Scoring: Individually administered and teacher scored  Frequency: Multiple times to assess learning

12. Precision Teaching  Applications: Evaluation and instructional planning  Development: Teacher made  Administration and Scoring: Individually administered and teacher scored  Frequency: Multiple measures

13. Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)  Applications: Eligibility, placement, diagnosis  Development: Teacher made using guidelines  Administration and Scoring: Standardized  Frequency: Repeated over time for a long duration

14. DIBELS  Applications: Specific skill difficulties  Development: Sampling of items created by authors  Administration and Scoring: Standardized  Frequency: Two to three times yearly – often fall/winter and spring

15. Applications  Evaluation and Instructional Planning CBA Precision Teaching  Eligibility, Placement, Diagnosis CBM  Specific Skill Difficulties DIBELS AIMSweb

16. Development  Teacher made CBA Precision Teaching  Teacher made using guidelines CBM  Sampling of items created by authors DIBELS AIMSWeb

17. Administration and Scoring  Individually administered and teacher scored CBA Precision Teaching  Standardized administration and scoring CBM DIBELS AIMSWeb

18. Frequency  Multiple times to assess learning CBA  Multiple measures Precision Teaching  Repeated over time for a long duration CBM  Two to three times yearly – often fall/winter and spring DIBELS AIMSWeb

19. Evidence of Effectiveness  States mandating CBE as a component of pre- referral intervention process  CBA and Precision Teaching Student advancement in percentage points on ITBS greater for those receiving intervention than control students (Binder & Watkins, 1990)

20. Evidence of Effectiveness  CBM Viable and accurate tool for classroom teachers to measure long-term objectives of students with and without disabilities Applications for special and general education as well as integrated settings Diagnostic tool for error analysis and overall decision-making Potential for additional applications  Computer development of multiple measures  Computer scoring  Computer graphing (Shinn & Bomonto, 1998) Correlation with performance on state-wide assessment measures

21. Evidence of Effectiveness  DIBELS Measures are reliable and valid indicators of early literacy development and predictive of later reading proficiency Specifically designed to assess 3 of the 5 Big Ideas of early literacy  Phonological Awareness  Alphabetic Principle  Fluency with Connected Text Provide grade-level feedback toward validated instructional objectives. Allow early identification of students who are not progressing as expected.

22. AIMSWeb Progress Monitoring and Response to Intervention System  Scientifically based system.  Provides continuous student performance data.  Provides assessment materials and ability to organize and report CBM or DIBELS.  Uses a 3-Tier Problem-Solving model, including Response- to-Intervention (RTI).  Web-based data management and reporting applications for universal screening progress monitoring for general education strategic assessment for remedial or at-risk programs intensive progress monitoring of IEP goals for students with severe achievement problems.

23. Pros to using CBE  Individualized  Curriculum connected  Can be generalized and use as predictor  Data driven decision making  NCLB, Big Ideas, Reading First, RTI  Inexpensive

24. Cons to using CBE  Training and implementation  Time consuming

25. A System in Place – Foley Elementary  DIBELS / AIMSWeb Materials Scoring and data reporting $4 per student  Evaluation Teams Teachers Paras Title I School Psychologist

26. Foley System continued  Use of Data Title I Services Individualized Interventions Instructional Groups Curriculum Committee – trends and curriculum needs  Positive Reactions Teachers Parents Administration  Longevity DIBELS – 5 years AIMSWeb Math– 2 years

27. Despite our best efforts some kids succeed.  FO Smartest Kid in Class.wmv FO Smartest Kid in Class.wmv

28. Resources  http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_curriculumbe.html http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_curriculumbe.html  http://dibels.uoregon.edu/index.php http://dibels.uoregon.edu/index.php  http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/19 http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/19  http://www.aimsweb.com/ http://www.aimsweb.com/  http://www.teacherstoolkit.com/classroom1.htm http://www.teacherstoolkit.com/classroom1.htm  Binder, C., & Watkins, C. L. (1990). Precision teaching and direct instruction: Measurably superior instructional technology in schools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 74-96.  Shinn, M. R. & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: "Big ideas" and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn. (Ed.) Advanced Applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.