1. A Closer look at Computer Adaptive Tests (CAT) and Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)— Making RTI progress monitoring more manageable and effective.

4.  RTI Self-Assessment at School Level  RTI and Assessment Components  Universal Screening  Progress Monitoring  RTI and Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)  RTI and Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)  Some case examples from CAT

5.  Complete self-assessment at school level Complete self-assessment at school level  Report out group readiness  Next steps to implementation?

6.  RTI aligns with the school improvement process  RTI is:  A dramatic redesign of general and special education  A comprehensive service delivery system that requires significant changes in how a school serves all students NASDE, 2006

8. 1,390 respondents (K-12 administrators) to survey (margin of error 3-4% AT 95% confidence interval) 94% of districts are in some stage of implementing RTI – up from 60% in 2008 and 44% in 2007 Only 24% of districts reached full implementation Primary implementation is elementary level with reading leading the way  www.spectrumk12.com www.spectrumk12.com

9.  www.spectrumk12.com www.spectrumk12.com

10. Tier 1 Benchmark and School Wide Interventions for Students on Target and All Students Tier 2 Strategic & Targeted Interventions for Students at Risk Tier 3 Intensive Interventions Preparation and Training Determination of Eligibility Determination of Eligibility Administrative Supports Parental Involvement Universal Screening Data Analysis Collaboration with the RtI Process Strategic & Targeted Interventions Strategic & Targeted Interventions Benchmark & School-wide Interventions Intensive Interventions Intensive Interventions Intensive Progress Monitoring Intensive Progress Monitoring

12.  Universal Screening  Progress Monitoring

13.  Key elements of scientifically-based core programs includes explicit and systematic instruction in the following:  Phonological Awareness  Phonics  Fluency  Vocabulary  Comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000) 13

14.  Key Ideas and Detail  Craft and Structure  Integration of Knowledge and Ideas  Range of Reading and Text Complexity

15.  Concept Standards;  Numbers and Operations  Measurement  Geometry  Algebraic Concepts  Data Analysis and probability 15

16.  Process Standards:  Problem Solving  Reasoning and Proof  Communication  Connections  Representations ▪ (NCTM: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 16

17.  The Five Strands of Mathematical Proficiency  Conceptual Understanding  Procedural Fluency  Strategic Competence  Adaptive Reasoning  Procedural Disposition ▪ (NCTM: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) 17

18.  Operations and Algebraic Thinking  Numbers and Operations in Base Ten  Numbers and Operations – Fractions  Measurement and Data  Geometry  Mathematical Practices

19.  Wisconsin Balanced Assessment Recommendations within RTI Wisconsin Balanced Assessment Recommendations within RTI

20. 20 Formative Assessment  A planned process  Used to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes  Classroom-based  Formal and Informal Measures  Diagnostic - Ascertains, prior to and during instruction, each student’s strengths, weaknesses, knowledge, and skills to inform instruction.

21. 21 Benchmark Assessment  Provides feedback to both the teacher and the student about how the student is progressing towards demonstrating proficiency on grade level standards.

22. 22 Summative Assessment  Seeks to make an overall judgment of progress made at the end of a defined period of instruction.  Often used for grading, accountability, and/or research/evaluation

23. What is Universal Screening? ▪ Administered to all students at all levels, K-12 ▪ Universal screening is a process that includes assessments, but also includes record review and historical information ▪ Brief measure ▪ Its use is primarily to determine who might be at-risk ▪ Some screeners can do more

24.  Universal screening data are typically collected in the fall, winter, and spring.  Key questions  Identify how the group is doing as a whole  Determine who is individually in need of intervention beyond core instruction  Some screeners can give us info about how to focus instruction

25.  National RTI Center Tools Chart National RTI Center Tools Chart  Two types of measures  Curriculum-Based Measurement ▪ Benchmark, Summative  Computer Adaptive Tests ▪ Benchmark, Formative, Summative

26.  CBM designed as INDEX of overall outcomes of academic skills in domain  CBM is a General Outcomes Measure  Tells you HOW student is doing OVERALL, not specifically what skills they have and don’t have (not formative or diagnostic)

27.  General Outcomes Measure of company’s success  What is the one item that tells the CEO and stock holders how they are doing?

31. The medical profession measures height, weight, temperature, and/or blood pressure. Companies report earnings per share. Wall Street measures the Dow-Jones Industrial Average. General Outcomes approach for reading measures Oral Reading Fluency

32.  Standardized format for presentation  Material chosen is controlled for grade level difficulty  Material presented as brief, timed probes  Rate of performance used as metric  Results provide index of student progress in instructional materials over time  Indexes growth toward long-term objectives  Measures are not designed to be formative or diagnostic

33.  Can be used in formative way through error analysis, but that was not their design  Overall Reading Performance = Oral Reading Fluency (primary measure)  Early Literacy Measures = Phonics/Alphabetic Principles  Math = Computational objectives  Math = Concepts/applications of mathematics

34.  Early Literacy  Phoneme Segmentation Fluency  Initial Sound Fluency  Nonsense Word Fluency  Letter Identification Fluency  Reading  Oral Reading Fluency  Maze  Retell Fluency  AIMSweb as example AIMSweb

35.  M-COMP = Computation Skills  Assesses many skills across the grade  Samples the skills expected to be acquired  Grade-based assessment  Reflects performance across time  M-CAP = Concepts/Applications Skills

36.  Grade 3 MCOMP Example Grade 3 MCOMP Example  Grade 5 MCOMP Example Grade 5 MCOMP Example  Example of MCAP – Grade 3 Example of MCAP – Grade 3  Example of MCAP – Grade 5 Example of MCAP – Grade 5

39. MCOMP- Group Administered GradeTime (min) All Grades8 min Reading Measures- Time R-CBM- Individually Administered 1 min each X 3 Maze- Individual or Group Administered 1 min each X 3 Retell Fluency- Individually Administered 1 min each X 3 MCAP-Group Administered GradeTime (min) 2 -68 min 7-810 min

41.  Instructional Recommendations Instructional Recommendations  Link to Lexile Level and Instructional Level Book Recommendations (Gr 3, Lawnton- Scores & Percentiles) Link to Lexile Level and Instructional Level Book Recommendations (Gr 3, Lawnton- Scores & Percentiles)  Prediction to state test also available Prediction to state test also available  Links to Common Core also reported Links to Common Core also reported

42.  At each grade, one identifies the distribution of students at each level of risk, as defined by the user  Data used by data team to identify students in need of supplemental instruction  Data reflects change in GROUPS over time

43.  Show data for school- Use RCBM Show data for school- Use RCBM  Have groups interpret the outcomes  Use data from CD as example  Extract grade 2 and 3 data, Winter only. Have the groups identify goals for winter.  Then show the Winter to spring data and have groups draw conclusions about the data.

44.  Change over time interpreted differently for reading and math  Change from end of one year to start of next (summer decline?)  Implications for instruction?

48.  Within and across grade growth is evident for reading (RCBM) but not math  Across grade growth in reading shows step wise improvements, after “summer decline”  In math, within year change over the year can be very small  Across grade growth in math not possible to determine from math CBM, i.e., each grade is not necessarily higher scoring than the previous grade  Interpretation within grade rather than across grade is stronger  Why? Due to nature of within grade measures- Math measures are more specific skills probes than general outcome measures

50.  Based on IRT (Item Response Theory) method of test construction  Adjusts items administered based on student responses and difficult of items  Tests have huge item banks  Items are not timed, based on accuracy of response  Careful calibration, pinpoints skills acquired and in need of teaching in a skill sequence

51.  Computer administered entirely  Between 15-25 minutes per administration  Skills focused within domains  Not all students take same items, depends on which items are answered correctly and incorrectly  Scaled Score is the KEY metric

52.  Provides a student’s relative standing to peers in on a national distribution  Provides student’s goals for growth  Provides indication of group’s performance (grade, school, district) relative to what is expected nationally  Example for today- STAR Assessment (Enterprise) from Renaissance Learning  Other similar metrics exist, see NCRTI charts  Study Island, SRI, MAP

53.  STAR Early Literacy (pre-K - 3)  STAR Reading (Gr 1 – 12) STAR Reading (Gr 1 – 12)  STAR Math (Gr 1 – 12)

54.  Metric that places student on a distribution from K through grade 12  Weight analogy  STAR Scaled Score  Early Literacy (PreK – 3) 300 – 900  Reading (K-12) – 0 to 1400  Math (1 – 12) – 0 to 1400  Note important difference in interpretation to CBM (AIMSweb) measures across grades and time

62.  Show Use of STAR as Universal Screening in Math  Exercise #2 Exercise #2  Use Lehighton Data as example across the year Have audience draw conclusions from the data  Gr 2 – 3 data fall, draw conclusions about outcomes

63.  STAR Math Fall Screening Report STAR Math Fall Screening Report  STAR Math Winter Screening Report STAR Math Winter Screening Report

65.  Students in need of tiered instruction are monitored on frequent basis  Frequency of monitoring can vary but once every two weeks is recommended at minimum  Monitor student toward grade level goals  Reading  R-CBM (Oral Reading Fluency) – after mid year grade 1  Math  M-COMP & M-CAP (starting second grade)

66.  Same measures used for progress monitoring  Goals set for expected rate of change over the year  Measures are used to determine outcomes of interventions  General Outcomes Measures for overall progress  Short term measurement might also be needed for skill development

67.  All measures have error  Change in performance over time must be interpreted by considering error  If change from one point to next is within error, no big deal  If change from one point to next is larger than error, need to check whether change is “real” or “accidental”  Easier or harder passage than one before  Student was physically ill  Student just clicked away on the computer  CBM ORF SEM = 10 wcpm (range 5-15)  Christ, T. J.; Silberglitt, B., (2007) School Psychology Review, 36(1), 130-146.

73.  Use of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression is only valid trend estimator  Number of weeks of monitoring is key and best predictor of outcomes  Recommendation is 10-14 weeks with good passage set  Increasing density of data collection (i.e., more in shorter amount of time) does not improve prediction)  Need to use more data per assessment (i.e., 3 passages use median) over single passage

74.  Measures are generally short and efficient (1 minute for Reading individually administered, 8 minutes for math that can be group administered)  Reading is General Outcome Measure, cuts across reading skills, strong correlations to state assessments  Math measures of both computation and concepts offer rich array of assessments across domains of skills  Measures remain sensitive to growth within grades across the year

75.  Measures are not designed to be formative (diagnostic) but some math measures can be (Yearly Progress Pro)Yearly Progress Pro  Additional assessment needed for purposes of formative assessment and instructional linkages  Math measures do not always show same growth patterns across grades  Math measures cannot be easily used across grades  Links to state and common core standards are not always clear, measures are designed to be broad growth indicators not specific skills assessments

76.  Same measure can be used as progress monitoring device  Frequency can be as often as once per week  Standard Score measure is reflected in data

83.  All CAT measures offer instructional links  Tied to skill sequences and development  Can be used to assist teachers in identifying instructional targets  Example report from STAR Reading (Enterprise)  Example reports from STAR Math  Learning Progressions

84.  Diagnostic Report – STAR Ex Diagnostic Report – STAR Ex  Instructional Planning Report- Emily Instructional Planning Report- Emily  Progress Monitoring Report- Emily Progress Monitoring Report- Emily  Annual Report Emily Annual Report Emily

85.  Question of growth is critical  How much did the student grow this year?  How was the growth made by the student compared to other students who started at the same point as this student?  Student Growth Percentiles  Innovative metric  Tells you whether the GROWTH made by the student was as much, more, or less than expected

88.  Grade 3 Screening Report Grade 3 Screening Report  Two Students - All receive intervention  TB (On Watch)  MR (Needs Intervention)

89.  TB – Diagnostic Report TB – Diagnostic Report  Note the inclusion of scores directing you to specific levels and texts for reading  TB – Instructional Planning Report TB – Instructional Planning Report  TB – Progress Monitoring Report TB – Progress Monitoring Report  TB – PSSA Estimate TB – PSSA Estimate  TB – Common Core Estimate TB – Common Core Estimate  TB – Core Progress Learning Progression  Author’s Craft- Grade 3 (demo from logged in RL website)

90.  MR – Instructional Planning Report MR – Instructional Planning Report  MR – Progress Monitoring Report MR – Progress Monitoring Report  MR – PSSA Estimate MR – PSSA Estimate  MR – Common Core Estimate MR – Common Core Estimate  MR – Core Progress Learning Progression  Author’s Craft- Grade 3 (demo from logged in RL website)

91.  Measures are efficient since they are administered by computer (15-20 minutes) and can be given to large groups at the same time  Reading & Math serve as General Outcome Measures (looking at scaled scores and movement toward goals)  Reading & Math serve as indicators of instructional foci with direct links to skills in need of instruction  Reading & Math measures assess the domains consistent with common core and state standards, with strong correlations to state assessments  Reading & Math measures remain sensitive to growth within AND across grades across the year

92.  Measures can show more bounce in the data due to students not being carefully monitored in their taking of the tests on computers (pay attention to SEM rules)  Measures are not direct measures of fluency  Measures may be somewhat limited in sensitivity to small increments of growth over short periods of time (i.e. 4-6 weeks)  Use of STAR (or any CAT) requires full understanding of the nature of CAT

93.  CBM and CAT are both options for universal screening and progress monitoring  Both measures provide summative and benchmark objectives  CBM not designed for formative analysis  CAT adds dimensions of formative assessment and instructional planning links  Lots of options – both CBM and CAT

94. Dr. Edward S. Shapiro ed.shapiro@lehigh.edu