Progress Monitoring and Goal Writing Section 2: Curriculum-Based Measurement and Writing Individualized RTI or IEP Goals. Progress Monitoring and Goal Writing

Progress Monitoring Research has demonstrated that when teachers use formative evaluation [progress monitoring] for instructional decision-making purposes: students achieve more teacher decision making improves students tend to be more aware of their performance (e.g., see Fuchs, Deno, Mirkin, 1984; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Ferguson, 1992; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005)

Progress Monitoring Tools Used to monitor progress from one year to the next Sensitive to effects of an intervention Can be used regardless of curriculum (e.g. Harcourt, Scott Foresman) Useful to inform teaching Quick to administer & easy to score Provides instant data to graph Easily understood by teachers and parents

What is CBM? Curriculum-based measurement, or CBM, is a method of monitoring student progress through direct assessment of academic skills. CBM can be used to measure basic skills in reading, mathematics, spelling, and written expression. Instructor gives the student brief, timed samples, or "probes," made up of academic material taken from grade-level curriculum. Performance on a CBM probe is scored for speed, or fluency, and for accuracy of performance.

CBM covers… Reading (Early Literacy skills, Reading Fluency and Comprehension) Math (Early Numeracy skills, Math Computation/ Basic Math facts) Writing (Spelling and Written Expression) Probes contain a mixture of problems that represent skills to be mastered by the end of the year NOT like traditional mastery/chapter tests For either mathematics computation (e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division with whole numbers, fractions, and decimals) or mathematics concepts and applications (e.g., place value, time and money, charts and graphs, and problem solving), the teacher identifies 25 problems that represent the important skills to be mastered by the end of the year. Alternate forms of 25 problems then are developed with each form containing the same proportion of problem types at the same level of difficulty but using different numerals. Commercially prepared alternate forms are available for elementary and some middle school grades (e.g., L. S. Fuchs, Hamlett, & Fuchs, 1998, 1999). Depending on grade level and type of mathematics test (i.e., computation vs. concepts and applications), the teacher allots 2-8 minutes for students to work, although the time allowance never changes across the year for a particular student/grade level. Thus, mathematics fluency as well as accuracy is addressed by this measure, and scores can be compared. The CBM score is derived by determining the number of correct digits in the student’s final answers per specified unit of time.

Previous Goal-Setting Strategies: Use “data” from standardized achievement tests like WIAT-II, WJ-III ACH Use data from Mastery Tests (e.g. chapter tests) Refer to state standards Use a sample goal-bank Suggestions on classroom observation of skills (subjective)

Pitfalls of Previous Strategies Standardized Tests (WIAT-II, WJ-ACH): Lack of alternate forms Less sensitive to short-term gains Reliance on age or grade equivalents ≠ accurate Ex. Students with 1 year delay typically not considered “significantly discrepant” from their peers, and may not qualify for special education. Mastery tests do not reflect maintenance or generalization of skills over the course of the school year Little guidance in selecting goals from state standards/ goal-banks: No consistent evaluation tool to measure goals written from standards or goal banks!

Pitfalls, continued… Examples of Previous Goals/Objectives: “Student will perform spelling skills at 3rd grade level.” “Student will master basic math facts with 80% accuracy.” “Student will read 1 story per week.” “Student will read aloud with 80% accuracy and 80% comprehension.” Little research supports that these types of goals relate to improved educational outcomes. Difficult to consistently measure over time. Tendency to write un-ambitious goals in hopes that student will show “some” progress over the year.

To improve our goal writing: Remember: goals are statements about the power or impact of our instructional programs. Goals need to be more clearly defined. Identify specific skills deficits through universal screening measures using CBM. Target a few, but important goals and objectives. Ensure goals are measurable and linked to validated progress monitoring approaches.

CBM to write IEP and RTI goals CBM scores from Universal Screenings are easily translated into goals for RTI intervention and IEPs. Using CBM to write goals lets us accurately compare performance later in the year because: Test administration of CBM is consistent (and quick!) Scoring procedures are consistent Difficulty level of test is always consistent

RTI: Who needs a goal? A desirable goal for all students is to achieve a score at or above the 50th%ile on the Universal Screenings (Fall/Winter/ Spring). WOVSED recommends that students below the 25th%ile are considered “At-Risk.” Use AIMSweb site to schedule PM. Students who perform in between the 25th and 50th%iles may need “Strategic Monitoring.” Consider monitoring these students, just less often. Option to do this through AIMSweb site.

Level of Intervention and Monitoring Frequency 75-80% of students Universal Screening Strategic Monitoring (25th-50th%ile) Progress Monitoring (< 25th%ile) (Every two weeks or weekly) (Monthly) (Three times per year) Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1

Components of our Goals Current/Present Level of Performance What the student is currently able to do in the targeted area. Taken from Fall, Winter, Spring Universal Screenings Works with whatever CBM tool you are using (DIBELS/AIMSweb, etc). Intervention Goal/Annual Goals and Objectives Growth anticipated for specific time period Should be ambitious Must be specific Must be measurable

Example of Current Levels Statement Student’s Score 50th %ile score

IEPs: Annual Goals CBM probes represent a range of skills to be mastered by the end of the year. CBM-based annual goals are easily understood by parents. Instructional programming first is addressed by establishing expected year-end goals. Because the CBM tests represent skills the student is expected to master by the end of the year, the IEP team also can write a measurable CBM goal statement that reflects long-term mastery. Teams can refer to normative CBM information for assistance in establishing ambitious, yet realistic goals for students (e.g., Deno, Fuchs, Marston, & Shin, 2001; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993). A goal line on the CBM graph is depicted by connecting the student’s average initial performance (i.e., baseline) to the end-of-year goal and shows the rate of progress the student must maintain across the year in order to meet the long-term goal.

Annual Goal-Line X The X is the end-of-the year performance goal. A goal-line is drawn from the median of the first three scores to the performance goal.

Not at Grade Level? Universal screening data does not always reflect accurate measurement of skills. In some cases, Universal Screening data show that grade-level passages are too frustrating for some students. What do we do to get a better understanding of a student’s current performance level?

Survey Level Assessment (SLA) Process to determine Current Performance Levels when student is not working at grade level. Can be used for RTI or IEP purposes. Student is tested in successive levels, beginning with current grade placement, until he/she scores anywhere within the “Average range.” Create SLA table, using Aggregate Norm Tables. Find score at or above the 25th%ile for the particular grade and time of year. Scoring anywhere within the “Green” on AIMSweb Individual or Comparison reports.

Create Survey Level Assessment Table Sally is a 4th grade student who was tested in the Fall. Use AIMSweb Aggregate Growth Tables (next slide). Grade of Passage Passage 1 (WRC/E) Passage 2 (WRC/E) Passage 3 (WRC/E) Median (WRC/E) Instructional Range? 4 51/6 38/11 59/2 At-Risk 3 60/4 58/3 42/7 58/4** “Average” *Using Survey Level Assessment, Sally’s performance is Average given a 3rd grade AIMSWEB R-CBM probe (Fall).

Using AIMSweb Individual or Comparison Reports: Box Plots First Quartile (0-24th%ile) Median or Middle Score Third Quartile (50th- 74th %ile) Fourth Quartile (75th – 100th%ile) ¼ of scores Above Average ¼ of scores Average Second Quartile (25th-49th %ile) ¼ of scores ¼ of scores Below Average

John 5th grader: 5th grade passage 26/12 John 3rd grade passage 62/4 John 4th grade passage 49/7 Conducting a Survey Level Assessment

Guidelines for administering SLA probes Administer probes from successive grade-levels, beginning at the student’s current grade placement or one year above the student’s functioning level. Reading-CBM: Use median score of 3 probes. Rule of Thumb on R-CBM: If WRC is 20 or fewer, stop administering probes on this level and move one level below. (For middle/high school students, suggested starting point is 6th grade passages. Survey levels higher or lower as needed).

Creating the Goal: 5-Steps Step 1. Document Current/Present Levels of Performance: “Sally’s Current Performance on a 4th grade AIMSweb R-CBM probe is 51 Words Read Correctly, while the expected performance level is 103 Words Read Correctly (50th%ile Target).” “Using Survey Level Assessment, Sally’s performance is Average for Fall when given a 3rd Grade AIMSweb R-CBM probe.”

Creating the Goal Step 2. Decide how you will determine the desired goal level. Two options: Use Benchmark scores Compared to School/District Relate to High-Stakes Tests Use Norms Percentile (and associated score) Growth Rates/ Rates of Improvement (ROI)

Benchmark: Options Benchmark for success on some outcome measure, (ex. 71 WRC/min.) Correlates from high-stakes testing.

Norms Percentiles and corresponding score: Students at the 25th%ile (lower end of the Average range) read 81WRC/min. 81WRC/min

Growth Rates (Rate of Improvement/ ROI) How much growth students make in a week’s time. (ROI for students whose scores are entered into AIMSweb) Formula to determine how much growth you would like to see in a specific amount of time. *Goal = ________________________________ + Current Performance Level (___________________ X ____________________) # weeks until goal reviewed Growth Rate (use chart)

Growth Rates (Rate of Improvement) Ex. 3rd grader Ben’s median R-CBM score = 35. 12 weeks until the end of the school year. Team would like to see Ben make progress at a similar rate to his peers (1.0 words/week). 35WRC/min+ (12wks x 1.0) = 47WRC/min This is the goal by the end of the year!

Benchmark, Norm or Growth Rate? Are you more concerned with a specific outcome (i.e. on high-stakes tests), or how one student performs compared to a population of others (local or national?) Are you working with a student with a well-documented learning style? Using the Rate of Improvement is not always ambitious: Based on progress made by students in general ed. classroom who are NOT receiving additional intervention. Point of RTI is to help kids catch up ROI will never be help students catch up because they will be learning at the same pace as students receiving no intervention; students receiving intervention need to learn at a faster pace.

Setting the Goal Level Step 3. Team decides what an appropriate goal will be! Be ambitious! Select the level that you want to see the student achieve within a specific amount of time. Research has shown that ambitious goals can lead to better student achievement: How ambitious you are should depend on: How often you can feasibly provide services How confident you are in the power of your instructional programs and resources

Selecting Length of Time Step 4: Team must determine how much time to allow until the goal can be feasibly reached. RTI goals written to reflect length of intervention: Depends on how long interventionist needs to effectively teach skill. Individualized based on student need. Depends on how often you will progress monitor. Need 7-9 data points to plot a trend-line. IEPs: Will have an annual goal (apx. 36 weeks) and short-term objectives.

Suggestions for Writing Objectives Annual goal - Minus current performance / Divided by number of weeks between baseline and goal = Short term / Weekly objective. By subtracting the average current performance from the long-term goal and dividing the difference by the number of weeks occurring between baseline and goal, the IEP team also can figure the weekly rate of improvement, or short-term objective, that the student needs to achieve in order to stay on track toward meeting the long-term goal. In fact, the teacher can use the goal line in benchmark fashion to determine at any point in time the level at which the student should be performing in order to make adequate progress toward the goal. The CBM graph showing both student performance data and the goal line, then, provides an efficient and effective visual tool for communicating student progress with parents or other professionals (Deno, 2003).

Writing the Goal Step 5: Write goal into a standard format. Same/similar format can be used for RTI/IEP goals. Facilitates process of goal-writing. Easily understood by general, special and remedial teachers. Can be used for any deficit area pertinent to a Specific Learning Disability Basic reading, reading fluency, reading comprehension, math calculation, math reasoning, written expression.

Sample RTI Goal Written w/AIMSweb Early Literacy Goal (Kindergartener) Current Performance: Lizzie’s current level of performance on a Kindergarten AIMSweb LSF probe is 2 Letter Sounds/min, while the expected level of performance is 14 correct Letter Sounds for Fall. Goal: At the end of 8 weeks, when given a K AIMSweb LSF probe, Lizzie will say Correct Letter Sounds with an expected performance level of 22 LS/min.

IEP Goal Written with AIMSweb Basic Reading Skills Goal (Second Grader) Current Performance Level: Terrance’s current level of performance when given an AIMSweb 2nd Grade R-CBM probe is 40 WRC/min, while the expected level of performance is 82 WRC/min, (50th%ile target). Goal: In 30 weeks, when given an AIMSweb 2nd Grade R-CBM probe, Terrence will achieve a median score of 100 WRC/min with less than 4 errors. Objective: Each week, when given an AIMSweb 2nd Grade R-CBM (Reading Fluency) probe, Terrence will increase his score by 2 Words Read Correctly.