How To Pass A Test



Similar documents
Ohio Technical Report. The Relationship Between Oral Reading Fluency. and Ohio Proficiency Testing in Reading. Carolyn D.

Best Practices in Setting Progress Monitoring Goals for Academic Skill Improvement

DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Score Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 19, 2016

DUAL DISCREPANCY MODEL ASSESSMENT SCORES:

District 2854 Ada-Borup Public Schools. Reading Well By Third Grade Plan. For. Ada-Borup Public Schools. Drafted April 2012

Setting Individual RTI Academic Performance Goals for the Off-Level Student Using Research Norms

An Analysis of Voyager Passport Reading Intervention Program Amanda Schlafke, Summer 2013

How To: Assess Reading Comprehension With CBM: Maze Passages

AIMSweb Default Cut Scores Explained

Student Progress Monitoring in Mathematics Pamela M. Stecker, PhD

Matching Intervention to Need and Documentation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interventions

Administering and Scoring of the Oral Reading Fluency and Maze Tests

How To: Assess Reading Speed With CBM: Oral Reading Fluency Passages

Teachers have long known that having students

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring

mclass :RTI User Guide

Using CBM for Progress Monitoring. Lynn S. Fuchs and Douglas Fuchs

Progress Monitoring and RTI System

Comparison of Progress Monitoring with Computer Adaptive Tests and Curriculum Based Measures

Tertiary Intervention

Teaching Reading Essentials:

Elementary. EBIS Handbook

Portland State University Graduate School of Education Department of Special Education

Ongoing Progress Monitoring Across All Tiers of Support. MDCPS Office of Academics, Accountability and School Improvement

GUIDE TO BECOMING A READING CORPS SITE

Empirical Data Supporting Technology Transfer of the Morningside Model of Generative Instruction

2012 University of Texas System/ Texas Education Agency

Using CBM to Progress Monitor English Language Learners

Common Core State Standards English Language Arts. IEP Goals and Objectives Guidance: Basic Format

Progress Monitoring Tools Chart Updated: December 2012

EARLY LITERACY INDIVIDUAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS (EL-IGDIS) AS PREDICTORS OF READING SKILLS IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH SECOND GRADE

Writing Instructionally Appropriate IEPs

Attainment. Curriculum. Resources RTI. Workshop. PDF Reproducibles

The Response to Intervention of English Language Learners At- Risk for Reading Problems

The Development of Early Academic Success: The Impact of Direct Instruction s Reading Mastery

Transcript: What Is Progress Monitoring?

The Role of the School Psychologist on the RTI Problem-Solving Team

DIBELS Next Assessment Manual. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

Review of K-12 Literacy and Math Progress Monitoring Tools

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM

First Grade Core Knowledge Addendum

9/27/2010. LynneD SpillerEdD Creighton School District

Opportunity Document for STEP Literacy Assessment

AIMSweb Growth Table Reading-Curriculum Based Measurement Multi-Year Aggregate School Year

Choosing a Progress Monitoring Tool That Works for You. Whitney Donaldson Kellie Kim Sarah Short

Understanding Types of Assessment Within an RTI Framework

PROGRESS MONITORING STUDY GROUP CONTENT MODULE

Middle School Special Education Progress Monitoring and Goal- Setting Procedures. Section 2: Reading {Reading- Curriculum Based Measurement (R- CBM)}

Test of Early Numeracy. Kindergarten Benchmark Assessments. Benchmark Period 3 Notes and Observations: Given To: School: Fall Date Scored By

AIMSweb Quick Tip Handbook

Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading?

Online Assessment Systems

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY

Minnesota Reading Corps State-Wide Evaluation

Linking DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency with The Lexile Framework for Reading

State of Early Literacy Assessment

mclass: Reading 3D Reminders

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Standards and Procedures. for. Identification of Students with Suspected Specific Learning Disabilities

Fulda Independent School District 505

Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI ) Benchmark Goals and Composite Score Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 20, 2015

Establishing a Screening Process

Response to Intervention (RTI) Preventing and Identifying LD

Successful RtI Selection and Implementation Practices

Tier 2 Supplementary Interventions

Oral Fluency Assessment

INDIVIDUAL MASTERY for: St#: Test: CH 9 Acceleration Test on 29/07/2015 Grade: B Score: % (35.00 of 41.00)

INDIVIDUAL MASTERY for: St#: Test: CH 9 Acceleration Test on 09/06/2015 Grade: A Score: % (38.00 of 41.00)

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING WITH FIDELITY. by Jill Radosta SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

Academic Achievement and the Implementation of School-wide Behavior Support

Response to Intervention

Graphing and Interpreting CBM Scores

Does Intensive Decoding Instruction Contribute to Reading Comprehension? Stephen Krashen Knowledge Quest (in press)

Response to Intervention/ Student Support Team Manual Department of Psychological Services

TAS Instructional Program Design/ Scientifically-based Instructional Strategies

Selecting and Exiting Students Read 180 Program Springfield School District

Improved Reading Achievement by Students in the Craven County Schools who used Scientific Learning Products:

Developing Fluent Readers

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses in L.D. Identification

Uinta County School District #1 Multi Tier System of Supports Guidance Document

Sample Letters. Sample Letters Promotion & Placement

WELLESLEY SCHOOL COMMITTEE POLICY ON ADMISSION OF STUDENTS TO THE WELLESLEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE LOS ANGELES UNFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCAL DISTRICT EAST

Technical Manual. istation s Indicators of Progress, Early Reading Version 4

Targeted Reading Intervention for Students in Grades K-6 Reading results. Imagine the possibilities.

MA in Sociology. Assessment Plan*

Best Practices in Monitoring Progress for Preschool Children

Transcription:

KINDERGARTEN Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Initial Sound 0-3 At risk 0-9 Deficit Fluency (ISF) 4-7 Some risk 10-24 Emerging 8 and above Low risk 25 and above Established Letter Naming 0-1 At risk 0-14 At risk 0-28 At risk Fluency (LNF) 2-7 Some risk 15-26 Some risk 29-39 Some risk 8 and above Low risk 27 and above Low risk 40 and above Low risk Phoneme 0-6 At risk 0-9 Deficit Segmentation 7-17 Some risk 10-34 Emerging Fluency (PSF) 18 and above Low risk 35 and above Established Nonsense Word 0-4 At risk 0-14 At risk Word Fluency 5-12 Some risk 15-24 Some risk (NWF-CLS) 13 and above Low risk 25 and above Low risk Fluency (WUF) BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. Tentatively, students in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms should be considered at risk for poor language and reading outcomes, and those between the 20th percentile and 40th percentile should be considered at some risk.

FIRST GRADE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Letter Naming 0-24 At risk Fluency (LNF) 25-36 Some risk 37 and above Low risk assessment period Phoneme 0-9 Deficit 0-9 Deficit 0-9 Deficit Segmentation 10-34 Emerging 10-34 Emerging 10-34 Emerging Fluency (PSF) 35 and above Established 35 and above Established 35 and above Established Nonsense Word 0-12 At risk 0-29 Deficit 0-29 Deficit Fluency 13-23 Some risk 30-49 Emerging 30-49 Emerging (NWF-CLS) 24 and above Low risk 50 and above Established 50 and above Established Oral Reading 0-7 At risk 0-19 At risk Fluency (ORF) 8-19 Some risk 20-39 Some risk 20 and above Low risk 40 and above Low risk (RTF) BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED. Preliminary evidence indicates that for students to be on track with comprehension they should meet both of the following criteria: 1) meet the Oral Reading Fluency benchmark goal and 2) have a retell score of at least 25% of their Oral Reading Fluency score. Fluency (WUF) BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. Tentatively, students in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms should be considered at risk for poor language and reading outcomes, and those between the 20th percentile and 40th percentile should be considered at some risk.

SECOND GRADE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Nonsense Word 0-29 Deficit Fluency 30-49 Emerging (NWF-CLS) 50 and above Established Oral Reading 0-25 At risk 0-51 At risk 0-69 At risk Fluency (ORF) 26-43 Some risk 52-67 Some risk 70-89 Some risk 44 and above Low risk 68 and above Low risk 90 and above Low risk (RTF) 1 BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 1 Fluency (WUF) 2 BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 2 THIRD GRADE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year Oral Reading 0-52 At risk 0-66 At risk 0-79 At risk Fluency (ORF) 53-76 Some risk 67-91 Some risk 80-109 Some risk 77 and above Low risk 92 and above Low risk 110 and above Low risk (RTF) 1 BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 1 Fluency (WUF) 2 BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 2 1: BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED. Preliminary evidence indicates that for students to be on track with comprehension they should meet both of the following criteria: 1) meet the Oral Reading Fluency benchmark goal and 2) have a retell score of at least 25% of their Oral Reading Fluency score. 2: BENCHMARK GOALS FOR THIS MEASURE HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. Tentatively, students in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms should be considered at risk for poor language and reading outcomes, and those between the 20th and percentile and 40th percentile should be considered at some risk.

FOURTH GRADE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year DIBELS Oral 0-70 At risk 0-82 At risk 0-95 At risk Reading Fluency (ORF) 71-92 Some risk 83-104 Some risk 96-117 Some risk 93 and above Low risk 105 and above Low risk 118 and above Low risk FIFTH GRADE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year DIBELS Oral 0-80 At risk 0-93 At risk 0-102 At risk Reading Fluency (ORF) 81-103 Some risk 94-114 Some risk 103-123 Some risk 104 and above Low risk 115 and above Low risk 124 and above Low risk SIXTH GRADE Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year DIBELS Oral 0-82 At risk 0-98 At risk 0-103 At risk Reading Fluency (ORF) 83-108 Some risk 99-119 Some risk 104-124 Some risk 109 and above Low risk 120 and above Low risk 125 and above Low risk *Preliminary evidence indicates that children's retell scores should typically be about 50% of their oral reading fluency score, and that it is unusual for children reading more than 40 words per minute to have a retell score 25% or less than their oral reading fluency score. A retell score of less than 25% of the oral reading fluency score may indicate a problem with comprehension.

Note: Goals and cutpoints for risk for Grades 4 through 6 are based on CBM normative information from 4th and 5th grade students in Fall, Winter and Spring from Hasbrouck and Tindal (1992) as well as average slope of reading progress information from Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann (1993). Empirical evidence of the percent achieving subsequent literacy goals is not yet available for these initial estimates. In addition to these preliminary estimates of goals and risk indicators, local normative information is available for each participating school district. A reasonable approximation of goals and cut scores for risk are also available from the local norms. The 40th percentile using local norms provides an approximate goal, and below the 20th percentile using local norms provides an approximate at-risk indicator. With additional research these preliminary estimates will be refined based on the odds of achieving subsequent literacy goals. Each district can examine these odds by entering scores on a selected outcome for relevant grade levels. For example, in Oregon, a state assessment is given in fifth grade with a specific goal for meeting expectations. If a participating school district enters the fifth grade scores for all fifth grade students and the Oregon State Assessment goal, the DIBELS Data System will provide the odds of achieving the goal for these initial estimates of goals and risk indicators. References Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48. Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992, Spring). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, pp. 41-44.