Upload
gerard-gavin-bradford
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Using CBM in a Response to Intervention Framework
Other Ways to use Curriculum Based Measurement Data
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Module Series
This module is intended to be used in conjunction with a series of modules.– Introduction to CBM– CBM in the Content Areas
ReadingMathWritten Expression
– Other Ways to Use CBM Data– Using CBM to Implement RTI
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Note About This PresentationAlthough we use progress monitoring measures in this
presentation to illustrate methods, we are not recommending or endorsing any specific product.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
You Will Learn: How to Use the Curriculum-Based Measurement
Database to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability and for Formulating Policy Directed at Improving Student Outcomes
How to Incorporate Decision Making Frameworks to Enhance General Educator Planning
How to Use Progress Monitoring to Identify Nonresponders Within a Response-to-Intervention Framework to Identify Disability
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
No Child Left Behind requires all schools to show Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward a proficiency goal.
Schools must determine measure(s) for AYP evaluation and the criterion for deeming an individual student “proficient.”
CBM can be used to fulfill the AYP evaluation in the content areas.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
Using CBM:– Schools can assess students to identify the
number of initial students who meet benchmarks (initial proficiency).
– The discrepancy between initial proficiency and universal proficiency is calculated.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
Using CBM (continued): – The discrepancy is divided by the number of years
before the 2013–2014 deadline.– This calculation provides the number of additional
students who must meet benchmarks each year.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
Advantages of using CBM for AYP:– Measures are simple and easy to administer.– Training is quick and reliable.– Entire student body can be measured efficiently and
frequently.– Routine testing allows schools to track progress
during school year.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
0
100
200
300
400
500
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
End of School Year
Nu
mb
er o
f S
tud
ents
Mee
tin
g C
BM
Ben
chm
arks
(257)
(498)X
Across-Year School Progress
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
National Center on Response to
Intervention
0
100
200
300
400
500
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
2005 School-Year Month
Nu
mb
er o
f S
tud
ents
Mee
tin
g C
BM
Ben
chm
arks
X(281)
Within-Year School Progress
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
National Center on Response to
Intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
2005 School-Year Month
Nu
mb
er S
tud
ents
on
Tra
ck t
o
Mee
t C
BM
Ben
chm
arks
Within-Year Teacher Progress
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
2005 School-Year Month
Nu
mb
er S
tud
ents
on
Tra
ck t
o
Mee
t C
BM
Ben
chm
arks
Within-Year Special Education Progress
National Center on Response to
Intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
2005 School-Year Month
CB
M S
core
: G
rad
e 3
Co
nce
pts
an
d
Ap
plic
atio
ns
Within-Year Student Progress
How to Use CBM Data to Accomplish Teacher and School Accountability
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Incorporate Decision-Making Frameworks for Planning
CBM Reports prepared by computer can provide the teacher with information about the class:– Student CBM raw scores– Graphs of the low-, middle- and high-performing
readers– CBM score averages– List of students who may need additional intervention
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Incorporate Decision-Making Frameworks for Planning
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Incorporate Decision-Making Frameworks for Planning
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Incorporate Decision-Making Frameworks for Planning
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use Progress Monitoring Within a RTI Framework to Identify Disability
Traditional assessment for identifying students with learning disabilities relies on intelligence and achievement tests.
Alternative framework is conceptualized as nonresponsiveness to otherwise effective instruction.
Dual-discrepancy:
– Student performs below level of classmates.
– Student’s learning rate is below that of his or her classmates.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use Progress Monitoring Within a RTI Framework to Identify Disability
All students do not achieve the same degree of academic competence.
Just because reading or math growth is low, the student doesn’t automatically receive special education services.
If the learning rate is similar to that of the other students, then the student is profiting from the regular education environment.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use Progress Monitoring Within a RTI Framework to Identify Disability
If a low-performing student is not demonstrating growth where other students are thriving, then special intervention should be considered.
Alternative instructional methods must be tested to address the mismatch between the student’s learning requirements and the requirements in a conventional instructional program.
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use Progress Monitoring Within a RTI Framework to Identify Disability
Basics of RTI– Primary prevention (Tier 1)
Effective instruction in general education settingStudents suspected of being at-risk are identified
using norm-referenced or CBM testAt-risk students assessed using progress
monitoringAt-risk students unresponsive to research-based
treatment move to small-group tutoring (Tier 2)
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use Progress Monitoring Within a RTI Framework to Identify Disability
Basics of RTI– Secondary prevention (Tier 2)
Responsiveness-to-treatment determined based on amount of progress realized during Tier 2
Students responsive to Tier 2 return to general education setting
Students unresponsive to Tier 2 considered for tertiary prevention (Tier 3)
– Tertiary prevention (Tier 3)Special education services
National Center on Response to
Intervention
How to Use Progress Monitoring Within a RTI Framework to Identify Disability
CBM is a promising tool for identifying treatment responsiveness– CBM models student growth– CBM evaluates treatment effects– CBM informs instructional programming
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Case Studies Case Study #1: Darby Valley Elementary Case Study #2: Mrs. Smith
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Using CBM toward reading AYP:
– The school has a total of 378 students in the 2003-04 school year.
– Initial benchmarks were met by 125 students.
– Discrepancy between universal proficiency and initial proficiency is 253 students.
– Discrepancy of 253 students is divided by the number of years until 2013–2014: 253 ÷ 11 = 23.
– Twenty-three students need to meet CBM benchmarks each year to demonstrate AYP.
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
End of School Year
0
100
200
300
400
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
X(378)
Nu
mb
er S
tud
ents
Mee
tin
g C
BM
Ben
ch
ma
rks
(125)
Across-Year School Progress
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
X(148)
Within-Year School Progress
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
2004 School-Year Month
Nu
mb
er S
tud
ents
on
Tra
ck t
o
Mee
t C
BM
Ben
chm
arks
Ms. Main (Teacher)
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
2004 School-Year Month
Nu
mb
er S
tud
ents
on
Tra
ck t
o
Mee
t C
BM
Ben
chm
arks
Mrs. Hamilton (Teacher)
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
2004 School-Year Month
Nu
mb
er
Stu
de
nts
on
Tra
ck
to
M
ee
t C
BM
Be
nc
hm
ark
s
Special Education
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Cynthia Davis (Student)
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Dexter Wilson (Student)
Case Study 1: Darby Valley Elementary
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Case Study 2: Mrs. Smith
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Case Study 2: Mrs. Smith
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Case Study 2: Mrs. Smith
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Case Study 2: Mrs. Smith
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Curriculum-Based Measurement Materials
AIMSweb/Edformation Yearly ProgressProTM/McGraw-Hill Math Computation and Concepts/Applications
CBM/Vanderbilt Research Institute on Progress Monitoring, University
of Minnesota (OSEP Funded) Vanderbilt University
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Curriculum-Based Measurement Resources
See Appendix B of the manual for a list of resources
National Center on Response to
Intervention
Module Series
This module is intended to be used in conjunction with a series of modules.– Introduction to CBM– CBM in the Content Areas
ReadingMathWritten Expression
– Other Ways to Use CBM Data– Using CBM to Implement RTI
National Center on Response to
Intervention
This document was originally developed by the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring under Cooperative Agreement (#H326W0003) and updated by the National Center on Response to Intervention under Cooperative Agreement (#H326E07004) between the American Institutes for Research and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. This publication is copyright free. Readers are encouraged to copy and share it, but please credit the National Center on Response to Intervention.
National Center on Response to Intervention
www.rti4success.org