350 likes | 443 Views
Learn how White River School District developed a math screener through a district-wide focus, pilot process, and full implementation, with results from 2006-2007 data and next steps. Understand CBM, ORF, and DIBELS in math assessments, and the importance of measuring computational fluency. See the relationships between ORF and WASL tests and the key principles of CBM use. Discover the history and process of the Math Screener development within the district's Learning Improvement Planning, including the involvement of various stakeholders and focus areas such as professional development and curriculum alignment in math. Gain insights into the district's approach to assessing math skills three times a year from Kindergarten to Grade 10.
E N D
Development of a Math Screening Assessment on a Districtwide Basis Mike Jacobsen-Assessment and Curriculum Director Andy McGrath-Principal Glacier Middle School White River School District 360-829-3820 mjacobse@whiteriver.wednet.edu Washington Educational Research Association Annual Conference December 5-7 2007
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
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
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
Big Ideas About CBM • Extensive data supporting validity of use as a measure of basic skills • Principle use is in formative evaluation • Sensitive to changes in performance due to instruction • Easy to use within classrooms • Brief • Repeatable
ORF and Other Reading Tests • 1999- 3rd Grade Qualitative Reading Inventory to 3rd Grade ORF=.89 • 1999-3r Grade ITBS to 3rd Grade ORF=.64 • 1999-2th Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 2nd Grade ORF=.84 • 1999-3rd Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 3r Grade ORF=.77 • 1999-4th Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 4th Grade ORF=.64 • 1999-5th Grade Gates-MacGinitie to 5th Grade ORF=.86
ORF and WASL Relationships • 1998- 4th Grade WASL to 5th Grade ORF=.70 • 1999-4th Grade WASL to 4th Grade ORF=.51 • 2003-6th Grade ORF to 7th Grade WASL=.68 • 2000-4th Grade ORF to 4th Grade WASL=.66 • 2002-4th Grade ORF to 4th Grade WASL=.65
Why Assess Computational Fluency? • “Many of the difficulties children have in arithmetic result from not understanding number ideas supposedly learning at an earlier time” • Engelhart, Ashlock & Wiebe, 1984 • “In most cases the precision and fluency in the execution of the skills are the requisite vehicles to convey the conceptual understanding.” • H. Wu, 1999
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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