New Thinking in Response to Intervention - Renaissance Learning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Accelerated Math for Interventionâ¢ - Renaissance Learning$

Conclusion At the end of the day, users of STAR measures can be confident that every aspect of RTI is easily met by the various reports generated through the STAR assessments. Users of STAR need to become comfortable and fluent with the STAR scaled score, which on the surface, can seem a bit abstract compared to CBMs direct measures of student performance (i.e., the number of correct sounds, the number of words read per minute, the number of items correct on a math test). However, the STAR scaled score represents where a student’s skills fall across a longitudinal scale spanning the entire school spectrum from kindergarten through grade 12. Placement of students on a longitudinal scale is not part of the CBM measurement system. STAR measures offer an important and potentially valuable contribution to RTI. Those considering STAR measures should be confident that the data produced by STAR assessments are accurate, reliable, and valuable for informing decisions that are a part of the RTI process. The STAR measures provide a level of instructional planning information that exceeds what is produced by CBM alone, a level of support educators will certainly find useful within the RTI model. STAR offers the added and important advantage of links directly to instructional targets compared to CBM. The objective of effective RTI systems is to provide instructional interventions to students who are identified to potentially not meet grade-level expectations. Assessment tools are critical to RTI. Both STAR and CBM systems measure student performance on the key components of universal screening and progress monitoring to reflect a student’s response to intervention. Clearly, RTI does not equal CBM. STAR measures offer an important and potentially valuable contribution to RTI. 20
References Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281-298. doi: 10.1037/a0019318 Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing Response-to-Intervention in Elementary and Secondary Schools. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232. Deno, S. L, Marston, D., Tindal, G. (1985-1986). Direct and frequent curriculum-based measurement: An alternative for educational decision making. Special Services in the Schools, 2, 5-27. doi: 10.1300/J008v02n02_02 Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45. Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M., & Francis, D. J. (2011). The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 109-135. doi: 10.1080/10888431003623546 Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437 McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixon, M. D., (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 193–203. National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010b). Screening tools chart. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.rti4success.org/screeningTools Petscher, Y., & Kim, Y. (2011). The utility and accuracy of oral reading fluency score types in predicting reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 107-129. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.004 Quinn, P. (2009). Ultimate RTI: Everything a teacher needs to know to implement RTI. Slinger, WI: Ideas Unlimited Seminars. Shapiro, E. S., Keller, M. A., Edwards, L., Lutz, G., & Hintze, J. M. (2006). General outcome measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests: Reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 42(1), 19–35. Shapiro, E. S., Solari, E., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316-328. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.002 Silberglitt, B., Burns, M. K., Madyun, N. H., & Lail, K. E. (2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 527-535. doi: 10.1002/pits.20175 Snow, C., Porche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is literacy enough Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Wright, J. (2007). RTI toolkit: A practical guide for schools. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing. 21
Page 1 and 2: New Thinking in Response to Interve
Page 3: Contents Introduction..............
Page 6 and 7: Introduction Over the past few year
Page 8 and 9: Components of RTI An RTI process co
Page 10 and 11: Comparison of CAT and CBM Curriculu
Page 12 and 13: Screening with CAT STAR Early Liter
Page 14 and 15: Progress Monitoring with CBM Once a
Page 16 and 17: To monitor Juanita’s progress, ST
Page 18 and 19: Instructional Planning with STAR Th
Page 22: Acknowledgements Author Edward S. S

New Thinking in Response to Intervention - Renaissance Learning

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?