340 likes | 518 Views
By The End of This Presentation You Will:. Understand how the district implements a K-10 CBM reading assessment systemUnderstand how the WRSD developed a math screenerDistrict-wide focusEstablish a committeePilot processFull implementationFall, winter
E N D
1. Development of a Math Screening Assessment on a Districtwide Basis
Washington Educational Research Association
Annual Conference
December 5-7 2007
2. By The End of This Presentation You Will:
Understand how the district implements a K-10 CBM reading assessment system
Understand how the WRSD developed a math screener
District-wide focus
Establish a committee
Pilot process
Full implementation
Fall, winter & spring data 06-07
Next steps
3. Basic Definitions CBM=Curriculum Based Measurement
Developed Initially at University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities
Measures students progress in basic skills using existing curriculum
Psychometrically sound
ORF=Oral Reading Fluency
What is measured is students’ ability to read out loud, accurately and fluidly
DIBELS=Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
Researchers from the University of Oregon coined the phrase
4. What is CBM? Standard, simple, short duration fluency measures of reading, spelling, written expression and mathematics computation
WRSD Reading CBM is very similar to DIBELS with one exception
WRSD Math Screener is different than DIBELS in math
In reading CBM is oral reading fluency
Measures “vital signs” of student achievement
Academic thermometer
10. CBM ORF/WASL
13. White River School District Assessment Process Implemented during the 98-99 school year for K-6 Reading
6th-8th grade added 2002
9th/10th grade added 2005
Implemented during the 2006-2007 school year for 1-10 Math screener
Kindergarten students, initial sound fluency, letter names and segmenting phonemes
Grades 1-10 orally read passages from appropriate grade level material
Conducted three times per year during September, January and May
20. Background of Development of the Math Screener: District Learning Improvement Planning Established Fall of 2005
Approximately 30 members, teachers, building administrators, central office administrators, parents and school board members
Each building had a stipend position for a teacher who served as DLIP coordinator
Met monthly during the 05/06 school year
The first meeting was on structure and goals, research on effective schools and role of the district
21. Background: District Learning Improvement Planning Established Fall of 2005
Approximately 30 members, teachers, building administrators, central office administrators, parents and school board members
Each building had a stipend position for a teacher who served as DLIP coordinator
Met monthly during the 05/06 school year
The first meeting was on structure and goals, research on effective schools and role of the district
22. Background: District Learning Improvement Planning The second meeting focused on district-wide information using the data carousel format
WASL trend data-desegregated
ITBS
CBM
Demographics
Safe and Civil Surveys
Nine Characteristics
Healthy Youth Survey
Sports and Arts program participation
Curriculum alignment
Professional development
26. Background: District Learning Improvement Planning Used data from the carousel process to identify three major focus areas:
Professional development
Curriculum alignment-math
Math
Each focus area had co-chairs
Every member of the district learning improvement team was on one of the focus area committees
Outcome oriented
27. Math Committee District Math TOSA Kathie Ross and Andy McGrath Co-chaired the Math Committee
Goal: To produce a math assessment that will reliably predict a student’s success on the WASL (not diagnostic)
To produce an assessment that can be given in 20-30 minutes and can be graded in a timely manner without added cost
28. Math Committee To Achieve This Goal:
We added teachers to the committee from each level primary, intermediate, middle and high school
Committee Makeup
3 Administrators
7 Teachers
1 Central Office
2 Parents
29. Math Committee ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT
Committee met for about 2 months discussing the makeup of the assessment:
Assessment Structure:
20 Total Questions
12 Computation
8 Applied Problems
Single Number Answer
Reading fluency assessment already established in district
Reviewed Fuchs and Fuchs-Monitoring Basic Skills Progress-2nd Ed.
Reviewed Ken Howell’s et all- Multilevel Academic Skills Inventory-Revised
Next step split subcommittee into three groups:
Elementary
Middle
High School
30. Math Committee-Assessment Cont. The Groups using the GLEs as a guide developed a draft assessment for each grade level
Assessments were brought back to full committee to be discussed and edited
Developed assessments for grades 2 – 10
Assessment give three times a year in conjunction with reading assessment
33. Pilot Process IMPLEMENTATION
An assessment for each grade level completed by April 2005
Piloted last May with volunteer classrooms at least two per grade level
Pilot results to Assessment Office analyze math assessment and reading fluency to see if this would be a good predictor of WASL success
If the assessment proved to be an accurate predictor of WASL success then implement district wide Fall 06
34. Pilot Process Manila envelope provided to each pilot teacher
Directions for Administration
Instructions for Scoring
Student Response Sheets
Test Key
Copies of student response forms provided to each teacher
624 students grades 1-8 participated
Statistically strong relationships with WASL math and spring oral reading fluency demonstrated
35. Pilot Results