1. RTI and District Assessments Jack B. Monpas-Huber, Ph.D. Director of Assessment and Student Information Anzara Miller RTI Coordinator / Professional Development Specialist

2. RTI Integrity Rubric: Screening This kind of evidence exists in abundance for DIBELS and easyCBM and was in fact a requirement in our selection of easyCBM as our math screener DIBELSeasyCBM Following is a series of slides documenting work the Assessment office has done with our own local data

3. What does a strong correlation look like? District assessment MSP Perfect predictionNo relationship

4. How well do our reading screeners predict performance on the MSP?

6. easyCBM and the MSP Pearson correlations These are correlation coefficients between easyCBM fall, winter, and spring benchmark scores and the MSP scale scores. All correlations are moderate to strong (ranging from.634 to.818) and statistically significant with large samples of the same students who took all three benchmark tests.

7. easyCBM and the MSP Pearson correlations

8. easyCBM and the MSP Grade 3 Interpretation This chart illustrates the correlation between easyCBM and MSP. We can use this to establish benchmarks for screening students for intervention. 60% of the students who scored a 30 on the fall benchmark test met the MSP standard Bubbles are sized according to number of students

9. easyCBM and the MSP Grade 4 Bubbles are sized according to number of students

10. easyCBM and the MSP Grade 5 Bubbles are sized according to number of students Notice also the growth between benchmarks (the spread between waves of bubbles), and where along the achievement scale that growth occurs:

11. easyCBM and the MSP Grade 6 Bubbles are sized according to number of students

12. easyCBM and the MSP Grade 7 Bubbles are sized according to number of students

13. easyCBM and the MSP Grade 8 Bubbles are sized according to number of students

14. Shoreline easyCBM growth norms, 2010-11 Gains in mean raw points

15. Shoreline easyCBM growth norms, 2010-11 Gains in easyCBM percentiles

16. RTI Integrity Rubric: Screening Not a 5 because our DIBELS screening is not universal for all three benchmark windows

17. RTI Integrity Rubric: Progress monitoring

18. Who monitored progress? easyCBM progress monitoring data, 2010-11 Counts of students taking at least one progress monitoring test

19. How much progress monitoring? easyCBM progress monitoring data, 2010-11 Total number of progress monitoring scores

20. Which students received progress monitoring? easyCBM progress monitoring data, 2010-11 Percent of students progress monitored, by grade level and fall quartile

21. The red lines are students receiving any progress monitoring. In many cases their rate of growth between benchmarks exceeds that of students not progress monitored. This is consistent with research that progress monitoring without intervention still increases achievement by sizable effects (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik & Kulik, 1991).

22. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom testing. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 89-99. Reference