monitoring student progress to develop standards based ieps l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Monitoring Student Progress to Develop Standards-Based IEPs PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Monitoring Student Progress to Develop Standards-Based IEPs

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 71

Monitoring Student Progress to Develop Standards-Based IEPs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on

Monitoring Student Progress to Develop Standards-Based IEPs . OSEP GSEG Project Manager’s Meeting Gerald Tindal, Ph. D University of Oregon Martin Ikeda, Ph. D. Iowa Department of Education. Overview. Intent is to provide an overview of some ideas we have been thinking about

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Monitoring Student Progress to Develop Standards-Based IEPs' - ely


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
monitoring student progress to develop standards based ieps

Monitoring Student Progress to Develop Standards-Based IEPs

OSEP GSEG Project Manager’s Meeting

Gerald Tindal, Ph. D

University of Oregon

Martin Ikeda, Ph. D.

Iowa Department of Education

overview
Overview
  • Intent is to provide an overview of some ideas we have been thinking about
    • Jerry has researched CBM for 25 years +
    • Marty has supported implementation for 12 years +
  • Conversational presentation-take comments and questions as we go
  • Representative of our best-thinking to-date
big ideas
“Big Ideas”
  • CBM is a viable tool for decision making about participation in the alternate assessment against modified academic achievement standards
  • CBM is a viable tool for decision making about progress against grade level standards
issues around 2
Issues around 2%:
  • IEP Participation Decision:
    • Objective evidence demonstrating that the student’s disability has precluded the student from achieving grade-level proficiency in the content area assessed.
    • The IEP team is reasonably certain that, even if significant growth occurs, the student is not likely to achieve grade level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP
  • IEP Development Issues
    • IEP goals based on State grade level academic content standards
    • Means for an annual determination of progress
our interpretation
Our interpretation
  • Need a way to operationalize proficient performance on grade level content standards
    • State Test: 1X/year depiction
  • Need a way to predict if the child can realistically achieve grade level proficiency within one year
    • “1-2 years behind?”
  • Need a way to monitor performance toward the operationalization
what we want
What we want:
  • Align decisions about participation, present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and IEP goals referencing grade-level proficiency
  • Assess progress more frequently than annually, so that instructional effects can be assessed and changes made to programs if needed
consider golf
Consider Golf
  • Many Components of a Good Golf Game
    • Grip
    • Choosing the Correct Club
    • Backswing & Follow Through
    • Putting Skill
  • General Outcome Measure for Golf
    • Number of Strokes
curriculum based measures a potential solution
Curriculum-Based Measures: A potential solution
  • CBM is a validated technique for a variety of decisions, but particularly for monitoring performance over time
    • General Outcomes
    • Brief
    • Repeatable
    • Sensitive to Changes in Performance over Time
    • Operationalize content standards at grade level (ambitious)
    • Support instructional decision-making
jacob grade 5
Jacob: Grade 5
  • Grade level proficiency standard:
    • 75 wpm local norm
    • 100 wpm published performance level
  • Jacob: 25 wpm in Grade level material
    • Problem?
illustration jacob

90th percentile

75th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

10th percentile

Jacob Score

Illustration: Jacob
  • Examination of performance against other 5th graders in the district (local norm)
  • Data generated during Spring for fifth graders on Grade 5 material
    • In the Fall, Jacob would be given probes from Grade 5 from year’s end material

150

140

130

Oral

120

Reading

110

Fluency

100

90

Jacob's

80

Performance

70

Compared to Peers

60

50

40

30

20

5

10

what are realistic growth rates in reading
What are realistic growth rates in reading?
  • Grade 1: 2 words correct/week
  • Grade 2: 1.5 words correct/week
  • Grade 3: 1 word correct/week
  • Grade 4: .85 words correct/week
  • Grade 5: .50 words correct/week
  • Grade 6: .30 words correct/week
  • It may be difficult for Jacob to “catch up” by year’s end. The IEP team might decide he is a candidate for the Alternate Assessment against Modified Academic Achievement Standards.
illustration juarez

90th percentile

75th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

10th percentile

Juarez Score

Illustration: Juarez
  • In the Fall, on year end material, Juarez is reading 80 wpm.
    • Students reading at this rate are getting meaning from text
    • They may not be reading fluently enough to earn a proficient score on the AYP test
  • However, Juarez is performing within grade level & is likely to “catch up” by year’s end
  • It would be defensible for the IEP team to conclude that Juarez is not a candidate for the alternate assessment against modified academic achievement standards and instead participate in the general assessment with accommodations

150

Oral

140

Reading

130

Fluency

120

110

Juarez’

100

Performance

90

Compared to Peers

And Performance

Standard

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

5

10

cbm and participation decisions
CBM and Participation Decisions
  • Potentially useful framework
    • Grade Level Proficiency
    • Projected Growth
  • Establishing alignment between the CBM metric, Grade Level Content Standards, and Grade Level Proficiency
connecting cbm in reading with grade level standards

Alternate Assessments based on

Modified Academic Achievement Standards

Connecting CBM in Reading with Grade Level Standards

Gerald Tindal

University of Oregon

alternate forms
Alternate Forms
  • Progress monitoring requires alternate forms to allow meaningful interpretation of student data across time. Without such cross-form equivalence, changes in scores from one testing session to the next are difficult to attribute to changes in student skill or knowledge.
  • As student reading skills progresses through the different skill areas in the broad construct of reading, it is necessary to use different reading measures to be able to continue to track the progress students are making as developing readers
technical reports
Technical Reports
  • Alonzo, J. & Tindal, G. (2007). The Development of Early Literacy Measures for use in a Progress Monitoring Assessment System: Letter Names, Letter Sounds, and Phoneme Segmenting. Technical Report # 39. University of Oregon, Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
  • Alonzo, J. & Tindal, G. (2007). The Development of Word and Passage Reading Fluency Measures for use in a Progress Monitoring Assessment System. (Technical Report # 40). University of Oregon, Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
  • Alonzo, J., Liu, K., & Tindal, G. (2007). Examining the Technical Adequacy of Reading Comprehension Measures in a Progress Monitoring Assessment System. (Technical Report #41). University of Oregon, Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
design of alternate measures
Design of Alternate Measures
  • Defined universe of items in a pilot
  • Used common items and nonequivalent groups design
  • Scored tests at the item level
  • Reassembled items for equivalent forms
data analyses
Data Analyses
  • One-parameter Rasch model
  • Estimates the difficulty of individual test items and the ability level of each individual test taker
  • Standard error of measure
  • Mean square outfit to evaluate goodness of fit (values in the range of 0.50 to 1.50)
letter names sounds segmenting
Letter Names, Sounds, Segmenting
  • 16 letter names exceeded mean sq outfit of 1.5 but were included given low SEM-3 letters found to not fit (g, H, and Y)
  • 16 letter sounds exceeded mean sq outfit of 1.5 but were included given low SEM-6 letter sounds found to not fit (B, C, d, j, p, and Qu)
  • A total of 181 words used in segmenting remained in the item bank
word reading fluency
Word Reading Fluency
  • Tests students’ ability to read both sight-words and words following regular patterns of letter/sound correspondence in the English language
  • Students are shown a series of words organized in a chart on one side of a single sheet of paper and given a set amount of time (30-60 seconds)
  • The words we used during the pilot study came from a variety of sources: Dolch word lists, online grade-level word lists, and a list of ‘the first 1000 words’ found in Frye’s Book of lists (1998).
word list design
Word List Design
  • Between 144 and 2654 students provided pilot test data on each word
  • We kept each of the pilot forms short (68 words in Kindergarten, 80 in grades 1-3)
  • We administered 5 different forms of the Word Reading Fluency test to students in Kindergarten, 4 forms to students in first grade, and 3 forms to students in third and fourth grade.
  • Each form contained 5 words that served as anchor items, common across all 15 forms of the test (and appearing in the same location)
passage reading fluency
Passage Reading Fluency
  • Tests students’ ability to read connected narrative text accurately. In this individually-administered measure, students are shown a short narrative passage (approximately 250 words)
  • Omissions, hesitations, and misidentifications were counted as errors
passage fluency design
Passage Fluency Design
  • Measures were all written specifically for use in this progress monitoring assessment system.
  • All 80 passages were written by graduate students enrolled in College of Education courses in the winter of 2006
  • Passage writers followed written test specifications and were systematically reviewed by Lead Coordinator and then teachers in field
  • Each passage was divided into three paragraphs of approximately even length and checked the readability of each paragraph using the Flesch-Kinkaid readability index (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5)
analysis
Analysis
  • On word list, we used Rasch analysis to scale words on difficulty and ability
  • For passages, we analyzed correlations and mean differences between the different forms of the measures using a repeated measures analysis
  • Variations in passage outcomes were reduced by rewriting passages
results of word list
Results of Word List
  • Initial analyses revealed 283 words outside the acceptable Mean Square Outfit range of 0.50 – 1.50. These items were dropped from the item bank, resulting in 465 remaining words
  • List created with the easiest words appearing first in the list and subsequent words increasing in difficulty
mc reading comprehension
MC Reading Comprehension
  • We developed the MC Comprehension Tests in a two-step process.
    • First, we wrote the stories that were used as the basis for each test
    • Then, we wrote the test items associated with each story
    • We embedded quality control and content review processes in both these steps throughout instrument development
  • Stories were narrative fiction of approximately 1500 words with three types of items written from them: literal, inferential, and evaluative
  • 20 items per story were developed with 6-7 items of each type noted above; 3-options were provided
authors of mc test
Authors of MC Test
  • The lead author, who oversaw the creation and revision of the stories and test items earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Literature from Carleton College in 1990, worked for twelve years as an English teacher in California public schools, was awarded National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification in Adolescent and Young Adulthood English Language Arts in 2002, and was a Ph.D. candidate in the area of Learning Assessments / System Performance at the University of Oregon at the time the measures were created.
  • The item writer earned his Ph.D. in education psychology, measurement and methodology from the University of Arizona. He has worked in education at the elementary and middle school levels, as well as in higher education and at the state level. He held a position as associate professor in the distance learning program for Northern Arizona University and served as director of assessment for a large metropolitan school district in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition, he served as state Director of Assessment and Deputy Associate Superintendent for Standards and Assessment at the Arizona Department of Education. He was a test development manager for Harcourt Assessment and has broad experience in assessment and test development
design of mc test
Design of MC Test
  • We used a common-person / common item piloting design
  • The 20 different forms of each grade level measure were clustered into 5 groups, with 5 forms in each group
  • Each test grouping contained two overlapping forms, enabling concurrent analysis of all measures across the different student samples
getting started
Getting Started

Menu

PM or BYOA

more on getting started
More on Getting Started

Grade Group to CBM –  Difficulty – Measure

standards based ieps

Alternate Assessments based on

Modified Academic Achievement Standards

Standards-Based IEPs

Gerald Tindal

University of Oregon

iep goal
IEP Goal

In Math, the content of the IEP goal in Data Analysis and Probability is to propose and justify conclusions and predictions that are based on data and design studies to further investigate the conclusions or predictions. Student will classify numbers, shapes, or objects, 10 tasks, with the competency level of 90%. The goal should be fulfilled by 2008-05-23.

The following contingencies apply: Read aloud problems

cbm sophistication
CBM Sophistication
  • National Center on Student Progress Monitoring (studentprogress.org)
  • Intervention Central (interventioncentral.com)
  • Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (progressmonitoring.net)
  • National Research Center on Learning Disablities (nrcld.org)
  • National Center on Response to Intervention (rti4success.org)
  • Microsoft Excel
  • Graph paper and pencil
slide62

Student Improvement is Job #1 Goal Area

Reading

District

07

Jacob

Year

School

Teacher

Name

By June 2008, given passages from the fifth grade curriculum Jacob will read 70 words correct in one minute.

Goal

25 Words Correct per Minute

Service Providers

Parent will provide extra oral reading time at home. They would like graph sent home biweekly.

Parent Participation

Data Collection and Charting

Ruso

South Iowa

East Elementary

Expected Level of Performance #1 #2 #3 #4

Baseline

1

100

90

80

Goal

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

10

4

12

11

8

13

11

12

13

slide63

Student Improvement is Job #1 Goal Area

Reading

District

07

Jacob

Year

School

Teacher

Name

By January, given passages from the fifth grade curriculum Jacob will read 70 words correct in one minute.

Goal

25 Words Correct per Minute

Service Providers

Parent will provide extra oral reading time at home. They would like graph sent home biweekly.

Parent Participation

Data Collection and Charting

Ruso

South Iowa

East Elementary

Expected Level of Performance #1 #2 #3 #4

1

2

Baseline

100

90

80

Goal

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

10

15

4

20

19

23

12

11

8

13

11

12

25

19

13

21

data collection and charting

Student Improvement is Job #1 Goal Area

Reading

District

07

Jacob

Year

School

Teacher

Name

By January, given passages from the fifth grade curriculum Jacob will read 70 words correct in one minute.

Goal

25 Words Correct per Minute

Service Providers

Parent will provide extra oral reading time at home. They would like graph sent home biweekly.

Parent Participation

Data Collection and Charting

Ruso

Expected Level of Performance #1 #2 #3 #4

3

1

2

Baseline

100

90

80

Goal

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

10

15

4

20

19

23

35

12

11

16

8

13

35

11

12

25

19

18

13

21

44

38

instructional decision making
Instructional Decision Making

Instructional

Intervention

Plan

Decision Making Plan:

Data will be collected at least once per week and charted. If three consecutive data points fall below the goal line the problem solving team will reconvene and an instructional change will be made.

Reading

Goal Area

Jacob

Student

Intervention Designer

Advisor

M.Ikeda/G. Tindal

Tammy Tyler

Phase Instructional Procedure Materials Arrangements Time Motivational Strategies

During small group reading in the classroom. Time added to Jacob’s group each day for this instruction

Grade level vocabulary

Vocabulary Preteaching

15 minutes

Daily

Verbal Praise

1

Instruction provided by general and sp ed teacher. Phonemic awareness training. Begin rereadings of passages.

Special Ed teacher will coteach Small groups will rotate between teachers increasing teacher contact time.

Word Walk curriculum

5.0 reading passages

30 minutes

Daily

2

Verbal Praise

Classroom motivators

3

Same

Tradebooks

At the end of each day, Jacob will read orally to resource teacher

15 minutes

Daily

Verbal Praise

Classroom motivators

Same instructional procedures

Add oral reading time each day

iep goals example 2
IEP Goals: example 2

Juarez attends a 5-6-7 building. He has a natural transition between Grades 7 and 8.

Juarez is currently reading 80 words per minute in Grade 5 material. In order to increase the likelihood that he scores proficient on the State test, Juarez needs to increase his proficiency to 120 words per minute in Grade level material. By June 2010, given passages from 7th grade reading curriculum material, Juarez will read 120 words correct in one minute with five or fewer errors.

data collection and charting67

Student Improvement is Job #1 Goal Area

Reading

District

07

Juarez

Year

School

Teacher

Name

By June 2010, given passages from the seventh grade curriculum Juarez will read 120 words correct in one minute.

Goal

70 Words Correct per Minute

Service Providers

Parent will provide extra oral reading time at home. They would like graph sent home biweekly.

Parent Participation

Data Collection and Charting

Ruso

Expected Level of Performance #1 #2 #3 #4

Year 2

Year 3

Year 1

140

130

Goal

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

data collection and charting68

Student Improvement is Job #1 Goal Area

Reading

District

07

Juarez

Year

School

Teacher

Name

By June 2010, given passages from the seventh grade curriculum Juarez will read 120 words correct in one minute.

Goal

50 Words Correct per Minute

Service Providers

Parent will provide extra oral reading time at home. They would like graph sent home biweekly.

Parent Participation

Data Collection and Charting

Ruso

Expected Level of Performance #1 #2 #3 #4

Year 2

Year 3

Year 1

140

130

Goal

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

cbm in a standards based iep
CBM in a Standards Based IEP
  • Grade level reference
  • Content Standard Aligned
  • Performance benchmarks
  • Multiple measures
  • Sensitive to growth
  • Established research base
  • High expectations
  • Focus on Instruction
cbm cautions
CBM: Cautions
  • Requires thoughtful decisions
    • Present Level
    • Projected Level
  • A Metric: may not be diagnostic
  • May not align with all relevant standards
  • Balanced Instruction-not a “teach to the test”
iowa s accountability system for students with disabilities

Tests Aligned to Content Standards

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Educational Development

Iowa’s Accountability System for Students with Disabilities

Core Content Standards and Benchmarks

Fair measurement of student knowledge

Alternate Assessment

Alternate Achievement Standards

Without Accommodations

With Accommodations