# Presentation: 354160

## Reading First AcademyAssessment Committee

**David Francis, University of Houston**
**Lynn Fuchs, Vanderbilt University**
**Roland Good, University of Oregon**
**Rollanda O’Connor, University of Pittsburgh**
**Deborah Simmons, University of Oregon**
**Gerald Tindal, University of Oregon**
**Joseph Torgesen, Florida State University **

**Team Leader Edward J. Kame’enui, University of Oregon**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Four Kinds of Reading Assessments

***Outcome***** ****- Assessments that provide a bottom-line evaluation of the effectiveness of the reading program.**
***Screening***** - Assessments that are administered to determine which children are at risk for reading difficulty and who will need additional intervention.**
***Diagnosis***** - Assessments that help teachers plan instruction by providing in-depth information about students’ skills and instructional needs.**
***Progress Monitoring***** ****- Assessments that determine if students are making adequate progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level reading outcomes.**

**An effective, comprehensive, reading program includes reading assessments to accomplish four purposes:**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
In the Accountability section, we discussed the importance of accountability assessment to provide a clear goal and our year to year progress toward the goal.  Accountability or outcome assessment provides the cornerstone for an assessment system that can support schools to change reading outcomes for our children.
Screening assessment is used to identify children early in the school year who may experience difficulty meeting standards on the end of year accountability or outcome assessment.  
Diagnostic assessment informs a specific instructional plan for what we need to do to change the outcome and to ruin the prediction of difficulty.
Progress monitoring assessment provides continuous, ongoing, formative information that is used to evaluate and modify the instructional plan.  

## Screening Assessment

**The crucial issue for screening assessment is predictive validity - which children are likely to experience reading difficulty?**
**The primary purpose of screening assessment is to identify children early who need additional instructional intervention.**
***Identification is not enough!  *****Screening is only valuable when followed with additional instructional intervention so that students achieve grade level reading outcomes.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Screening should be closely aligned with the outcomes and accountability assessment.  A crucial role of screening is to identify children who may not reach the outcome or accountability standard unless we provide additional intervention. Important beginning reading core areas include:
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Comprehension
Vocabulary
Screening must fit within an assessment system that targets important outcomes, and leads to the development of an intervention plan to change those outcomes for students at risk.   
		National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

## Early Screening Identifies Children who Need Additional Intervention

**201 randomly selected children from five elementary schools serving children from mixed SES and ethnic backgrounds were followed from the beginning of first grade to the end of fourth grade.**
**Children who scored low on phonemic awareness and letter knowledge at the beginning of first grade**
**Started with lower skills**
**Made less progress**
**Fell further and further below grade level as they progressed from first through fourth grade.**

**For example, in one longitudinal study:**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
This slide and the next 4 slides tell the story of five elementary schools that combined screening for children at risk with substantial intervention support to change reading outcomes and ruin the prediction of reading difficulty for the children screened as at risk. In this longitudinal study, 201 randomly selected children from five elementary schools serving  children from mixed SES and ethnic backgrounds (28% free and reduced lunch) were followed from the beginning of first grade through the end of fourth grade. 
For kindergarten, screening is focusing on phonemic awareness, the key accountability assessment outcome.  
First, the researchers followed the children identified as at risk to see if the prediction of risk was accurate.  

## Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of Reading Difficulty

**	**** ****1****	****       2****	****              3                 4****	****  **

**Reading grade level**

**4**

**3**

**2**

**1**

**5**

**At Risk on Early Screening**

**Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of Reading Difficulty**

**Low Risk on Early Screening**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
This slide demonstrates the power of screening assessment to predict reading outcomes through the end of fourth grade. Reading outcomes were measured at the end of each year.  The measure reported here assesses a combination of reading accuracy and comprehension.
 The children were administered measures of phonemic awareness and letter knowledge at the beginning of first grade, and divided into two groups: At-Risk, and Low Risk.   
[click] The line in red shows the progress of children who began first grade performing in the bottom 15% in phonemic awareness and letter knowledge.  At the end of fourth grade, these children were reading at an average level of mid second grade.  In contrast, children who began first grade with higher levels of phonemic awareness and letter knowledge and roughly equivalent levels of overall ability, finished fourth grade reading at beginning fifth grade level.

## Additional Instructional InterventionChanges Reading Outcomes

**Four years later, the researchers went back to the same school.  Two major changes were implemented:**
**First, a *****research-based comprehensive***** reading program was implemented for all students, and**
**Second, children at risk for reading difficulty were randomly assigned to a control group or to a group receiving *****substantial instructional intervention*****.  **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The four years illustrated in the previous slide were a passive observation study.  The researchers identified the children at risk, but then did not provide any systematic change in instruction beyond the current practices of the school.  
The investigators who conducted this second study were able to go back to the same schools about four years later, after many of the schools had switched to a more research-based, comprehensive reading program in grades K through 3. The research-based comprehensive reading program was implemented for the entire school, including the children identified as at risk on the same screening assessment. 

## Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes

**	**** ****1****	****       2****	****              3                 4****	****  **

**Reading grade level**

**4**

**3**

**2**

**1**

**5**

**2.5**

**5.2**

**Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes**

**At Risk on Early Screening**

**Low Risk on Early Screening**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Children from the bottom 15% in phonemic awareness and letter knowledge were randomly assigned to either a control group, or a group that received more intensive reading instruction in first and second grade.  
[click] The dotted red line shows the progress of the children who did not receive extra instructional intervention, and you can see that improved classroom instruction produced slightly better outcomes for them than in the earlier study in the same schools.  
[click] However, the children who were identified by the screening tests and received substantial instructional intervention did almost as well as average children by the end of fourth grade.  
Improved classroom instruction will help our most at-risk children learn to read better, but most will require more intensive interventions if we expect them to read at grade level by the end of fourth grade.

## Research-Based, Comprehensive Reading Program and Substantial Instructional Intervention

**Both a *****research-based comprehensive reading program***** and *****substantial instructional intervention***** were needed for children at risk of reading difficulty.  Children receiving substantial additional instructional intervention beyond an effective comprehensive reading program:**
**Progressed more rapidly than control students,**
**Had reading skills more like the low risk group than the at risk group, and**
**Were reading about at grade level.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
If we are going to leave no child behind, we need both a research-based comprehensive reading program and substantial instructional intervention for students who are screened as at-risk for reading difficulty.  

## Improving the Reading Program by Adding Assessment and Intervention

**Hartsfield Elementary School Characteristics:**
**70% Free and Reduced Lunch (increasing)**
**65% minority (mostly African-American)**
**Elements of Curriculum Change:**
**Movement to a more research-based reading curriculum beginning in 1994-1995 school year for K-2 (incomplete implementation)**
**Improved implementation in 1995-1996****	**
**Implementation in Fall of 1996 of screening and more intensive small group instruction for at-risk students**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
This slide and the next slide tell the story of Hartsfield Elementary School. 
Hartsfield modified its reading curriculum in grades K-2 with a research-based, comprehensive reading program.  
They also added intensive instructional intervention for children who were at-risk on a screening assessment. At the time these data were collected, Hartsfield Elementary School was serving a student population in which 70% of the children received free or reduced lunch, and 65% were minority students.   

## Hartsfield Elementary SchoolProgress Over Five Years

**          ****1995  1996   1997   1998   1999**

**Proportion falling below the 25th percentile in word reading ability at the end of first grade**

**10**

**20**

**30**

**Average Percentile        48.9   55.2    61.4    73.5     81.7**
**for entire grade (n=105)**

**Hartsfield Elementary School****Progress Over Five Years**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
In 1994, the school began to implement a more research-based, balanced reading curriculum in its K-3 classrooms.  This change took them about two years to implement fully.  
After the first year of implementation of the more balanced curriculum, about 32% of the children finished first grade with reading scores below the 25th percentile. 
[click]  In 1996 the research-based, comprehensive reading program was more fully implemented.  
[click] With the more complete implementation, about 20% were reading below the 25th percentile.  
[click] In 1997 they began screening children at the beginning of first grade and providing intensive instructional intervention to children who were at-risk on their measures.  
[click] The next year, only 11% of the children were still poor readers at the end of first grade. 
[click] [click] By the end of 1999, only about 4% of the children were reading below the 25th percentile. 
[click] During this same period of time, the overall percentile in reading ability of all the children at the end of first grade increased from the 49th percentile at the end of 1995 to the 82nd percentile at the end of 1999. 

## Diagnostic Assessment For Students Who Need Additional Intervention

**On which of the important beginning reading skill *****areas***** are the students on track, and on which do they need additional instructional intervention?**
**Which *****specific***** beginning reading skills has the student mastered or not mastered?**
**How much instructional intervention are the students likely to need (e.g., smaller group, extra time, more practice, more modeling, more scaffolding)?**
**Which intervention programs are most likely to be effective?**
**Which students have similar instructional needs and will form an appropriate group for instruction?**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The purpose of Diagnostic Assessment is to provide more in-depth information on student’s skills and instructional needs to plan instruction.
Diagnostic assessment may include a variety of teacher-made or specialized assessments, but should be closely aligned to the accountability outcomes for the grade.  
For children at risk of difficulty achieving accountability standards, which beginning reading core area are they experiencing difficulty in?
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Comprehension
Vocabulary
Once the beginning reading core area is identified, knowledge of specific skill difficulties are needed to inform intervention.  If students are having difficulty in phonemic awareness, have they mastered initial sounds? Final sounds? Medial sounds?  What point in an instructional intervention for phonemic awareness would be a good starting point for instruction?
Diagnostic assessment aligned with outcomes and screening supports the development of good intervention plans for students who are at risk for reading difficulty.  

## Progress Monitoring Assessment

**Children respond differently, even to instruction that is research based and usually effective.**
**If we are to get *****all***** children at grade level, we must get *****each***** child at grade level -- and keep them there.**
**We need to identify early when children begin to get off track and make necessary modifications to instruction or provide additional instructional intervention to keep them on track for at grade level reading outcomes.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Even the best intervention plans based on accurate and informative diagnostic assessment sometimes do not work as intended.  
Some estimates are that about 1 child in 3 does not respond to additional instructional intervention with the expected levels of achievement.  
An assessment system must include progress monitoring assessment to provide ongoing, formative evaluation of interventions so they can be modified early enough to achieve the major accountability outcomes for each and every child.  
Progress monitoring assessment should be closely aligned with intervention content, which should be closely aligned with accountability outcomes.  The whole assessment, instruction, and intervention system should be aligned to the important beginning reading core areas.  

## Importance of Progress Monitoring

**When a hunter is lost in the woods,**
**When a hikers are trying to find their way on a new trail,**
**When a driver is looking for an address in an unfamiliar city,**
**When a pilot is having difficulty finding the airport,**
**When a skipper is trying to find the port in the fog,**
**We have a technology to assist them in reaching their goal: *****Global Positioning System or GPS***** tells us,**
**Where we are**
**Where we want to be**
**What course to follow**
**Our progress toward the goal.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The crucial role of monitoring progress toward an important goal is a very general principle for many endeavors.  Hikers, drivers, pilots, and skippers all monitor where they are, where they want to be, what course they are following, and their progress toward the goal.  They all modify their course if they see that their initial plan is not working in the way they anticipated.  
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is helpful technology to assist.  

## Where are we?

**Where are we?**

**What is our goal?**

**What course should we follow?**

**How are we doing?**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
For example, in the Northwest boating is an important recreation and livelihood.  Whether you are on a whale watching tour or fishing, sometimes finding your way back to your port is easy.  The sky is clear, the ocean blue, and you can clearly see your home port and the course you should follow to reach a safe harbor.  
[click] But sometimes the fog roles in and our journey to our goal becomes much more difficult and challenging.  It is hard to tell where we are, where we want to be, what course to follow, and whether we are getting closer to safety or need to make a course adjustment.  
[click] So we turn on the GPS and ask where we are.  [click] Of course, knowing where we are is only of limited help.  The great philosopher Buckaroo Bonzai once commented, “No matter where you go, there you are!”
[click] We also need to know where the port, our safe harbor, is. [click] 
[click] We also need to know what course to follow to get there. [click] The GPS can tell us to point the boat at 117 degrees and progress for 20 minutes at 10 knots to reach our goal.  
Now we have a good plan about how to get to our goal, our safe harbor, and avoid the rocks and cliffs on either side.  But, sometimes our plans go awry....
[click] We also need to check up on our progress in time to make course corrections. [click] If we are off course, the time to modify our plan is early, in time to still reach our safe harbor and not end up on the rocks.
[click]

## Progress Monitoring: The Teacher’s Map

**Progress Monitoring: The Teacher’s Map**

**Aimline**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
This is exactly the role of progress monitoring toward important reading outcomes.  
Progress monitoring provides a GPS system for educators.  
In this figure, the first 3 X’s represent the child’s initial level of skills with respect to the accountability goal for the grade.  
Across the bottom is month of the school year.
The bulls eye represents the accountability outcome for the child’s grade in school.  If the child achieves that level of skill (or higher) then the child is on grade level and on track to meet standards for state accountability assessments in later grades.  
The green line represents the course the child will need to follow to achieve the desired outcome.  
The purple line represents a change or modification in the intervention plan. Sometimes the change may be a different intervention, sometimes the change may be additional time or practice opportunities within the same intervention.  Sometimes you need a major course correction, sometimes a minor course correction will do.  
But, the child must stay on course to achieve the outcome.  

## Reading First Initiative:At Grade Level

**States need to know, annually, whether they**
**are making progress towards reducing the number of students who are reading below grade level,**
**have significantly increased the number of students reading *****at grade level***** or above; and **
**have significantly increased the percentages of students in ethnic, racial, and low-income populations who are reading *****at grade level***** or above.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Key to the assessment system is a short, vivid indication of when students are on track for state accountability outcomes.  
At grade level is used here to convey that students either meet expectations on a state accountability assessment or are progressing at a rate that predicts they will meet expectations on a state accountability assessment administered in a later grade.  

## Defining At Grade Level

_**Rejected Definition**_**:  Grade equivalents are rejected as a basis for determining *****at grade level***** for technical reasons.**_** **_
_**Suggested Definition**_**: Students are *****at grade level***** if they meet expectations for reading proficiency on a state assessment or are predicted to meet expectations.  **
_**Secondary Definition**_**: *****At grade level***** is often used to refer to the *****average***** or *****typical***** reading skill for a grade level.  A fundamental difficulty with average performance as a standard is that it is not possible to get most students *****at grade level*****.  **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The words at grade level may lead some to think in terms of grade equivalents on achievement tests.  However, age and grade equivalents suffer such severe limitations as a type of score that they have no redeeming social value and should not be used for any purpose.  
The most important aspect of performance at grade level is if the student meets expectations on a state accountability assessment administered at that grade level.  Performance below expectations would be interpreted as below grade level. 
At grade levels where a state accountability assessment is not given, longitudinal evidence is needed to establish performance levels were students would be predicted to meet expectations on a later state accountability assessment.  
Referencing at grade level to state accountability assessments is preferred and will work well for most states.  Some states may need an alternative approach.
An alternative to state accountability assessment to establish at grade level is to use a norm-referenced test to identify average or typical performance as at grade level.  

## Suggested Ways to Show At Grade Level

_**State Assessment**_**: Many states offer a state assessment at the end of third or fourth grade.  Students are judged *****proficient***** or *****not proficient***** on the basis of the assessment.  Students rated *****proficient***** or the equivalent on a state assessment are *****at grade level*****.**
_**State Standards**_**: Many states have explicit, measurable standards for performance at each grade level.  Students meeting measurable state standards are *****at grade level*****.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
States may employ a state accountability assessment, or they may specify explicit measurable standards for children’s skills at each grade.  Either may be used to determine that students are at grade level.  

## Suggested Ways to Show At Grade Level

_**Predicted to Meet State Standards**_**: In grades where a state assessment is not given, students are *****at grade level***** who are likely to meet the state standard in the next grade where a state assessment is given.  **
_**Normative Standing**_**: A common use of *****at grade level***** is the level of performance that is typical for the grade.  Students scoring at the 40th percentile or higher are *****at grade level*****.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Normative standing may be used to approximate meeting a state standard.  In general, students performing at least at the 40th percentile are likely to meet state accountability standards.  
A fundamental problem with referencing at grade level to  average or typical performance is that educational reform is likely to be a multi-year endeavor -- and it is likely to make a substantial difference in reading outcomes.  If we as a nation are successful in improving the reading achievement of all of our children and especially those who would otherwise be poor readers, the norms will change.  As tests are revised and renormed, average or typical performance will improve.  Only in Lake Woebegone can we set a goal to have all children be at least average or typical readers.  

## Suggested Definition of Needs Additional Intervention

**Students who will need additional instructional intervention to achieve grade level outcomes:**
**Score somewhat but not severely below state standards.**
**May not meet state standards in third or fourth grade without additional intervention.**
**Score between the 20th and 39th percentile on an appropriate, nationally norm-referenced measure.  **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Students who are below grade level will need additional instructional intervention to be at grade level on subsequent accountability assessments.  Each accountability assessment serves a step toward the next accountability assessment.  

## Suggested Definition of Needs Substantial Intervention

**Students who will need substantial additional instructional intervention to achieve grade level outcomes: **
**Score *****well below***** state standards or expectations, **
**Are unlikely to meet state standards by third or fourth grade without *****substantial***** additional intervention, **
**Score below the 20th percentile on an appropriate, nationally norm-referenced measure.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Students who are well below state standards or who score in the lowest 20 percent on a norm-referenced measure are likely to require substantial additional instructional intervention to achieve state standards in subsequent grades.  
The essential implication of performance below grade level is the provision of additional instructional intervention to reach grade level.  

## Assessment Menus for Reading First

**To support districts in selecting tests of the 5 important beginning reading core areas corresponding to the recommended assessment framework, **
**Criteria were developed to review tests,**
**Tests are being evaluated for use, based on the criteria, and**
**Menus of selected tests will be recommended**
**A variety of recommended assessment *****menus***** will be developed.  Each assessment menu will lay out a sequence of assessments that meet established criteria and that are logistically feasible.  **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The Assessment Committee is developing a set of recommended assessment menus that a state or district can use to select assessments that will accomplish the purposes of outcome, screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessment described here.  

## Process and Criteria for Selecting Reading Measures 

**1. Establish criteria to evaluate reading measures**
**2. Select reading measures for review**
**3. Describe logistical requirements of test use**
**4. Establish review and recommendation process**

**The Reading First Assessment Committee has developed a set of processes and criteria to select, review, evaluate, and recommend reading assessment menus.  The following steps are being followed:  **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The Reading First Assessment Committee is engaged in a systematic and careful process to create assessment menus.  

## Step 1:  Establish Criteria to Evaluate Reading Measures

**a)  Does the test measure an important beginning reading skill?**
**b)  Does it provide sufficient information to assess whether the student is *****at-grade level*****?**
**c)  Is the test *****reliable***** (measures performance consistently) and *****valid***** (strongly relates to skill being measured)?**
**d)  Does the normative sample provide a meaningful comparison group for the students who will be assessed?**

**The Committee’s criteria to evaluate reading measures are based on the following questions:  **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The technical adequacy of each assessment will be evaluated and reviewed prior to recommendation.  

## Reading First Initiative: Rigorous Reading Assessment

**a) is valid, reliable, and grounded in scientifically based reading research;**
**b) measures progress in phonemic awareness and phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension; and**
**c) identifies students who may be at risk for reading failure or who are having difficulty learning to read.**

**Rigorous reading assessment means a reading assessment that--**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
Assessments must provide research-based evidence and must be aligned with the important skill areas of beginning reading.  

## Reliable Assessment Is Essential

**Reliability of the assessment refers to the stability or consistency of test scores. To have confidence in assessment, we would expect a similar score if the students were tested:**
**a) On a different day.**
**b) By a different tester.**
**c) On a minimally different set of items.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Valid Assessment Is Essential

**Validity of assessment refers to evidence that the test measures what it is supposed to measure.  A primary concern is that assessment measures the important beginning reading core areas:  **
**Phonemic Awareness**
**Phonics**
**Fluency**
**Comprehension**
**Vocabulary**
**Screening assessment must also provide evidence of predictive validity with respect to later reading outcomes.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Step 2:  Select Reading Measures for Review

**a)  Is the test frequently used in schools?**
**b)  Is the test frequently used in research/evaluation studies?**
**c)  Is the test prominent on lists developed by agencies and organizations?**
**d)  Is the test recommended by members of the Reading First Assessment Committee?**

**The Reading First Assessment Committee selected reading measures for review based on the following criteria:  **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Sample Tests to be Reviewed by the Committee

**Early Reading Diagnostic Assessment**
**Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery**
**Woodcock Reading Mastery Test**
**The Test of Word Reading Efficiency**
**The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes, CTOPP**
**The Test of Phonological Awareness**
**The Phonological Awareness Test**
**Gray Oral Reading Test-IV, GORT-4**
**Texas Primary Reading Inventory**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Sample Tests to be Reviewed (continued)

**Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test**
**Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation**
**Qualitative Reading Inventory**
**Iowa Test of Basic Skills**
**Stanford Achievement Tests**
**Terra Nova**
**California Achievement Tests**
**Auditory Analysis Test**
**Roswell-Chall auditory Blending**
**Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Sample Language Tests Reviewed

**Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III, PPVT-III**
**Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-3rd, CELF-3**
**Test of Language Development-Primary:3, TOLD-P:3**
**Test of Word Knowledge**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Sample Spanish Tests for Review

**Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody, TVIP**
**The Observation Survey (Spanish Equivalent)**
**Developmental Reading Assessment (Spanish Equivalent)**
**Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey**
**Aprenda: La Prueba de Logros en Espanol, Segunda Edicion**
**Pre-Las 2000**
**Spanish Reading Comprehension Test**
**La Prueba de Realizacion, Segunda Edicion**
**Spanish Assessment of Basic English, Second Edicion**
**Tejas Lee (Texas Reads)**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Step 3:  Describe Logistical Requirements of Test Use

**a)  Who administers the test?  (e.g., teachers, aids, school psychologists)**
**b)  What are the administration formats and time requirements of the assessment? (e.g., group, individual) **
**c)  What does the test cost? **
**d)  What are the training requirements? (e.g., amount of training time, qualifications of testers)**

**The Committee established procedures to consider the following information about test use:**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
In addition to the technical requirements for tests used in the assessment system, they also must be logistically feasible for schools to use.  The must be reasonably priced and not take too much time away from instruction.  

## Step 4:  Establish Review and Recommendation Process

**a)   Frequently used and prominent measures will be reviewed using a standardized review form. **
**b)   A minimum of 2 qualified reviewers will analyze each reading measure.**
**c)   The Reading First Assessment Committee will review the findings and make the final decisions based on the extent to which the measures meet the evaluation criteria.  **

**The Reading First Assessment Committee established the following process to review and select the reading tests:**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Now that You’ve Selected the Tests: Planning for Assessment

**Schedule the time to assess**
**Train the testers or teachers**
**Score tests**
**Return information to teachers**
**Help teachers to use the information to plan instruction and intervention**
**Schedule regular sessions in which teachers discuss their students’ scores and identify ways to incorporate the information into instruction**
**Aggregate data across districts**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The first step in developing an assessment system for a district is to select the tests to be used.  The assessment menus will help support that first step.  Once the tests are selected, specific plans will need to be developed by each school district for implementing the assessment system.  

## Action Plan for Implementing a District-Wide Early Assessment System

**STEP I: Specify necessary steps to implement plan.**
_**Action**_**: Meet with district- and school-level personnel to develop a plan to implement an early assessment system. **_**Indicate in designated cells what is necessary to achieve each assessment purpose (i.e., screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, outcome).**_** Items in underline indicate necessary action. **

_**Optional Small Group Activities**_

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:
The remaining slides describe an optional small group activity that may be used by a local school district or school planning group to plan the assessment system. 

## STEP II: Document degree of implementation.

**Action: Specify who is responsible and target completion date for each action below.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

##  Measure Selection

**Review list of measures and make final selection for each purpose.**
**Measure Acquisition**
**Develop procedure to purchase and distribute measures to schools.   **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

##  Professional Development

**Review tester qualifications (per measure) and identify individuals.**
**Provide training to ensure high quality test administration.**
**Specify who will administer measures, who will train data collectors, and procedures to ensure data are collected consistently. **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

##  Data Collection Process and Schedule

**Specify when measures will be collected.**
**Identify who will distribute materials.**
**Specify where data will be collected.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

##  Scoring and Data Management

**Establish a secure and reliable method of scoring, entering, and managing data. **
**Specify who will:**
**score measures**
**enter data**
**manage database**
**cross-check data entry to ensure reliability**
**report to State DOE**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

##  Information Reporting and Use

**Determine when & how information/results will be disseminated to teachers.**
**Provide professional development on how to use data to inform instruction. **
**Schedule feedback  and professional development sessions. **

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Complaints You Might Hear:

**We’re already trying to do too much. **
**We don’t have time to administer these assessments.**
**Who’s going to do all this?**
**Who’s going to pay for all this?**
**All this testing isn’t good for young children.**
**These assessments are not authentic.**
**What am I supposed to do with these results?**
**I won’t get the results back in time to do anything about it.**
**Across assessments, aren’t we combining apples and oranges?**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## What Could Go Wrong? How to Avoid Pitfalls and Address Concerns

**Plan sufficient professional development regarding the importance of early intervention and the important beginning reading core areas (See the National Reading Panel Report).**
**Plan adequate time and resources to administer assessments**
**Plan sufficient personnel to administer assessments**
**Plan for rapid turnaround of results and reports to inform instruction**
**Plan to act on the data: procedures to review the comprehensive reading program and a system to provide additional instructional intervention**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes:

## Four Controversial Issues in Assessment

**Assertion #1:  These tests don’t measure “real” reading (i.e., deriving or constructing meaning from text).**
**Assertion #2:  Testing children in kindergarten is not developmentally appropriate.**
**Assertion #3:  “Weighing cows won’t make ‘em fatter” (i.e., assessing children, in and of itself, will not increase student learning).**
**Assertion #4:  Is this just one more thing to do? I don’t have time for this.**

- Assessment Committee

- 2002

**Notes:**
Notes: