This resource developed by Sarah Thorud, Elementary Reading Specialist from Clatskanie School District in Oregon focuses on implementing screening and progress monitoring virtually. It includes guiding questions and considerations for implementation, video examples, and a sample sign-up sheet for screening and progress monitoring students virtually.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
In this webinar, Drs. Tessie Rose Bailey and Zach Weingarten from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Thom Jones from the Wyoming Department of Education and Justine Essex from Freedom Elementary School in Cheyenne, Wyoming shared how to set ambitious goals for students by selecting a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, establishing baseline performance, choosing a strategy, and writing a measurable goal.
These five screening one-page documents provide a brief overview of each of the NCII screening standards. They include a definition and information on why that particular standard is important for understanding the quality of screening tools.
The Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart is comprised of evidence-based progress monitoring tools that can be used to assess students’ academic performance, to quantify a student rate of improvement or responsiveness to instruction, and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. The chart displays ratings on technical rigor of performance level standards (reliability and validity) and growth standards (sensitivity, alternate forms, and decision rules) and provides information on the whether a bias analysis was conducted, and key usability features. The chart is intended to assist educators and families in becoming informed consumers who can select academic progress monitoring tools that address their specific needs. The presence of a particular tool on the chart does not constitute endorsement and should not be viewed as a recommendation from either the TRC on Academic Progress Monitoring or NCII.
The Academic Screening Tools Chart is comprised of evidence-based screening tools that can be used to identify students at risk for poor academic outcomes, including students who require intensive intervention. The chart displays ratings on technical rigor in the areas of classification accuracy, reliability, and validity, and provides information on the representativeness of the sample, whether a bias analysis was conducted, and key usability features. The chart is intended to assist educators and families in becoming informed consumers who can select academic screening tools that address their specific needs. The presence of a particular program on the chart does not constitute endorsement and should not be viewed as a recommendation from either the TRC on Academic Screening or NCII.
Data-based individualization (DBI) is a research-based process for individualizing and intensifying interventions through the systematic use of assessment data, validated interventions, and research-based adaptation strategies. This document introduces and describes the DBI process and how it can be used to support students who require intensive intervention in academics and/or behavior.
In this webinar, Drs. Kristen McMaster and Erica Lembke will present a data-based decision-making framework to individualize instruction for students with intensive needs in writing. They will describe Curriculum-Based Measures in writing, how these measures can be used for instructional decision making, and how teachers can access assessment tools for instructional decision making.
Norms for oral reading fluency (ORF) can be used to help educators make decisions about which students might need intervention in reading and to help monitor students’ progress once instruction has begun. This paper describes the origins of the widely used curriculum-based measure of ORF and how the creation and use of ORF norms has evolved over time. Using data from three widely-used commercially available ORF assessments (DIBELS, DIBELS Next, and easyCBM), a new set of compiled ORF norms for grade 1-6 are presented here along with an analysis of how they differ from the norms created in 2006.