Educational Assessment Report
Sample for Practice Purposes only EDEX 790
| Name: Isabel |
|
| D.O.B.: 7/2/94 |
C.A.: 8-4 |
| School: Hurricane Elementary |
Grade: 2.2 |
| Teacher: Mrs. Weathers |
Evaluation Procedures and Dates:
| Observation |
10/2/02 & 10/30/02 |
| CBMAssessment |
10/15/02 & 10/16/02 |
| WJIII |
10/31/02 & 11/13/02 |
| Brigance |
11/13/02 |
Reason for Referral: Isabel was chosen by her teacher and evaluated to meet the requirements for EDEX 790 in order to be assessed on her performance in academic areas.
Relevant Background: Isabel is currently is her third year but second grade at Hurricane Elementary. She began special education services in 1999 as a Kindergartner. She is currently placed in a self-contained class for students with emotional behavior disorders and has one general education teacher for math.
Classroom Observations: During the first observation in the
self-contained classroom, Isabel was working on reading. I used time sampling
with three behaviors defining on-task and three behaviors defining disruption.
The on-task behaviors I looked for were: 1) reading, either aloud (when called
to), along with the group, or silently 2) writing, and 3) attending to the
lesson, shown by giving eye contact to the speaker of the moment. The disruptive
behaviors were 1) talking out on topic, but not recognized first 2) talking
out off topic 3) not attending (looking elsewhere or otherwise occupied).
For comparison I observed a peer during the session that was in Isabel’s
same instructional group, but sat at least five feet from her. The peer was
also closer to the instructor than Isabel, who was sitting in one of the farthest
seats from the instructor. I chose to check Isabel and the peer at intervals
of 30 seconds.
During the initial nine-ten minutes a teacher-lead discussion of the reading
selection took place. During this time, Isabel displayed passive attending
during seven intervals (out of 20) and answered questions by the instructor
when asked, during four intervals. She was inattentive, looking elsewhere
or laying her head down, during three intervals, and spoke out of turn, but
on topic, during four intervals. By contrast, her peer was attentive during
six intervals, inattentive during four, spoke out of turn (on topic) on three
occasions and participated when called upon on seven occasions. This resulted
in Isabel being either mildly disruptive or off-task for 8/20 intervals and
her peer for 7/20, not a remarkable difference. On task percentage were 60%
for Isabel and 65% for the peer.
The subsequent five minutes were devoted to a “round robin” style
reading of the story. At this time Isabel seemed inattentive- looking mostly
at his desk or lap- for seven out of ten intervals. She attended to other
readers once and attempted to read when called upon for one minute. Her peer
only seemed inattentive for two intervals, raised his hand once for a comment,
and read for one interval. Thus, while Isabel was very passive during this
time, she did not appear to be on task.
The final five minutes of the observed period were spent on a writing assignment.
During this time a fairly significant change in Isabel was noted; she was
inattentive during the entire writing session, and was disruptive- talking
with classmates- for five consecutive intervals, about 2.5 minutes out of
five. This contrasts with the observed peer, who was on-task for six of the
ten intervals, and was not disruptive the entire five minutes.
From this observation it appeared that Isabel did not exhibit significant
behavior problems and was not greatly disruptive. The only minor disruption
she displayed was talking, and this was in a normal tone of voice and during
a narrow, specific time frame. She was overall a passive student and not a
participant in class activities. She showed a greater inattentiveness during
reading and writing segments than during the pre-reading “walk-through”
and discussion.
I observed a second time when Isabel attended her general education math classroom.
This was her first day in the math class because her teacher rearranged her
morning schedule to allow more one-on-one time with Isabel to work on reading
and writing. The math class was working in a large, teacher lead group on
money and then “doubles.” Isabel appeared fidgety or restless
(moving around in her chair, biting her fingernails) at times but eager to
answer even though she was not sure of the correct answer. I again used time
sampling with three behaviors defining on-task and three behaviors defining
disruption. Compared with her peers, Isabel remained on task 90% of the time
while her near and far peers were on task 75% and 65% of the time, respectively.
Isabel seemed to like math, only appearing to have difficulty when she answered
before thinking the whole problem out in her head.
Testing Observations: Isabel was cooperative and attentive to the tasks. Isabel was cooperative and attentive to the tasks. At this time I have worked with Isabel to complete three different reading samples. I also worked with her completing some of the reading tasks with the Brigance. She needed a few breaks, sometimes in the middle of a test, especially when the items became more difficult. When she was reading from the books, she was able to maintain her attention for 1 minute. She would wiggle in her seat when she came to a word she did not know and also when I asked her some comprehension questions on the text. Overall she was willing to work and maintain attention in a one-to-one situation.
During the WJIII assessment, Isabel attempted the difficult tasks, but gave up easily skipping to the next one. Sometimes during a test, Isabel would stand up or half lean out of her chair while answering questions. This behavior occurred when she was near the ceiling and appeared to be guessing at answers. She seemed to have more difficulty during the timed tests. She would look around, or speak off topic, which limited the amount of questions she was able to answer. She was given breaks in between all sub-tests; during this time, we would have a conversation or read a book of his choice. Overall, Isabel appeared to work hard during the testing period and remained cooperative.
Curriculum Based measurement of Reading Fluency: Isabel read for me three different times from three different selections in an alternative the second grade reading text. Her reading fluency for one minute reading samples were 32, 35 and 33 words per minute. She is able to read on the second grade level but she is reading slower than other students in her class who are reading 50 words a minute in the same book. I used a sample second grade reader because that is her current grade placement. I located passages that were representative of the entire text and also did not include a number of proper nouns.
Isabel was attentive during the reading samples. She held the page with the reading passage and following along with her finger. If she did not know a word, she was hesitate and then look at me. At that point I would tell her the word and encourage her to keep on reading all the words that she could read.
Compared to national norms from AimsWeb, students at the beginning of second grade are typically reading 50 or more words per minute. In contrast Isabel is reading slightly above the 25th percentile for her grade. Based on these initial probes by the end of the year Isabel should be reading at least 87 WPM.
Throughout the semester I administered six weekly probes on her reading fluency. I used reading samples from the second grade level for each probe. The scores for the weeks are recorded in the graph at the end of this report. Based on a visual inspection of the graph, Isabel is making slow progress. She had two data points below the aimline but then two weeks on the aimline. Her last data point is below the aimline. If she continues to be inconsistent in her growth she will not meet her goal. The teacher needs to monitor her reading growth to consider outside factors that might influence her reading. She also might need an additional intervention.
Level of Achievement: Before the WJIII test results are discussed, a brief explanation of scores is offered. In order to find out what scores are high, average, or low, they give the test to a large number of children across the country. The test is always presented in the same way to all children. The subjectÕs percentile rank indicates the percentage of the children in the norm group who received the same scores or a lower score on the test.
A special feature of the WJIII is the option to use either grade- or age-based norms. A grade equivalent reflects the subjectÕs performance in terms of the grade level in the sample at which the average score is the same as the subjectÕs score. An age equivalent score is similar to a grade equivalent, except that it reflects performance in terms of the age level in the sample at which the average score is the same as the subjectÕs score. It is important to note that this does not mean that the subject is performing at the same level as that grade or age, only that the average score was the same as the sample. The ranges for the WJIII are as follows.
High Average= SS 111 to 120 and % Rank 76 to 91 Test and Subtests Administered: Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement, Standard Battery 7-6 (If you administer any other
WJIII subtests or, if you have given a number of subtests that
fit into one of the BROAD categories then just add to the table) The results of the WJIII placed Isabel's achievement in
the low average to average range in all areas. The Broad
Mathematics and Sound Awareness scores were in the average range of achievement
and both the Broad Written Language and Broad Reading scores were in the low
average range. Isabel's Broad Reading standard score of 82 placed her overall reading
performance in the low average range. Her instructional On the Letter-Word
Identification subtest, Isabel read words presented in a list form within
the low average range, a standard score of 85. Isabel could automatically
identify several words but required more time and attention to the words she
had to decode. On the Reading Fluency subtest, Isabel read and comprehended
sentences within the low average range, a standard score of 81. Isabel
was able to comprehend the sentences but was limited due to her basic reading
skills and time requirements of the test. On the Passage Comprehension subtest,
that required Isabel to read a short passage and supply the missing word,
her standard score of 89 placed her achievement one point below the average range. The
eight-point difference between her basic reading fluency skills and comprehension
skills reflects Isabel increased ability to gain meaning from words in context
when she is not timed. This also indicates that she needs assistance to
increase her reading fluency. The instructional zone for Broad Reading is
from an easy grade level of 1.7 to a difficult grade level of 2.6 Informal
reading assessments and curriculum based monitoring would provide additional
information on reading strengths and weaknesses. Isabel's Broad Written Language score of 87 placed her overall writing performance
in the average range. On the Spelling subtest, Isabel produced single
letters and words in response to oral prompts within the low average range,
a standard score of 86. Isabel could identify lower case and upper case
letters but tried to spell words phonetically that required the memorization
of visual features. She also omitted needed letters. This weakness in
spelling words was consistent with her difficulty in reading words in list
form as evidenced by the fact that Isabel could automatically spell several
words but required more time and attention on the words she had to spell phonetically.
On the Writing Fluency subtest, Isabel wrote legible, simple sentences with
acceptable English syntax within the low average range, a standard score of
87. Isabel wrote slowly but accurately and was limited due to the time
constraint. This is consistent with Isabel's reading skills being limited
due to time as evidenced by her low average score on the timed subtest Reading
Fluency. Isabel's standard score of 98 on the Writing Samples subtest,
which required writing meaningful sentences in response to a variety of tasks,
placed her achievement in the average range. The twelve-point difference
between her writing skills and spelling skills reflects Isabel's strength
in her ability to produce expressive sentences. In addition, the writing
samples subtest does not deduct for errors in spelling, capitalization or
punctuation. On the Sound Awareness subtest, Isabel demonstrated her phonological awareness
abilities by rhyming, deleting sounds, substituting sounds, and reversing
sounds within the average range, a standard score of 100. Isabel rhymed,
deleted sounds, and substituted sounds with ease but found reversing sounds
difficult. Isabel appears to have the prerequisite phonological skills for
reading but is not yet automatic in her decoding skills. Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills 10/22/2002 Overall Isabel read both words from a list and words from a passage at the second
grade level. She was weak in the skills needed to analyze unfamiliar words.
Although she attempted to sound out some of the words, she was unable to blend
the sounds together to produce the whole word. This weakness in reading words
in isolation was consistent with her ability to read words in context as evidenced
by the fact that she had to keep going back to the beginning of a sentence
in attempting to decipher the words in a passage.
Isabel's reading comprehension skills were slightly stronger than her word
recognition skills. When reading aloud, Isabel was able to understand
what she read at the fourth grade instructional level. However. Isabel's silent
reading comprehension skills are much weaker, as she performed at a second
grade instructional level when asked to read a passage and answer questions.
Isabel's difficulty, however, is not with comprehension as evidenced by her
ability to listen to a fifth grade passage read aloud and correctly answer
questions about it. Her performance in listening comprehension indicates that
if she had the decoding and fluency skills, her comprehension would be age
appropriate. Informal Review of Reading Nonsense words
To learn more about IsabelÕs decoding skills, an informal phonics assessment was done on nonsense words. Isabel read from seven word lists, containing 24 words each that measured different aspects of decoding. For each list, Isabel had to read as many words as he could in two minutes. All lists were read under two minutes. She was in a happy mood and persevered until the assessment was done. She did well with CVC, CVC/VC, Blends and Two Syllable word lists. These were read with ease. The lists that contained Consonant Diagraphs, Vowel Diagraphs and All Elements were a struggle. There were more hesitations between some words as she attempted to decode, yet she finished some of these lists in the shortest amount of time because she could not decode all of the words accurately. Isabel missed five words on the Consonant Diagraph list, but the consonant diagraphs were actually pronounced correctly: the errors stemmed from not recognizing the VCV rule in those five words, in particular, words that ended with VCe. Therefore, the Consonant Diagraph piece of the assessment is probably not an accurate reflection of her capability in that area. On the Vowel Diagraph list, most words were pronounced with the short sound of the second vowel, rather than the long sound of the first vowel. However, she pronounced all the ÒeeÓ words correctly. On the All Elements sheet, the errors were the same as the Vowel Diagraph list. In addition, there were three instances were Isabel confused ÒbÓ and ÒdÓ sounds, and one instance of confusing ÒmÓ and ÒnÓ sounds. Compared to IsabelÕs low average score on the WJ III subtest on Letter-Word Identification, and the CBMs on Reading Fluency, the Nonsense Word assessment is consistent with her ability to read familiar words well, and consistent with her inability to read words that require more complex decoding skills.
Summary and Conclusions (now include a summary based on the individual summaries from all previous reports, DO NOT include a separate summary for each area but combine all summaries ):
Isabel's overall performance ranged from low average to average. Her
relative strengths were her comprehension skills, math, writing meaningful
sentences when given a task, and phonological skills. However, Isabel
is not as strong in reading, spelling, and writing fluency abilities. She
is strong in word recognition. However, Isabel is not as strong
in her independent reading comprehension abilities. Comprehension difficulties
arose in recalling detail and sequencing of events. These skills also influences
lower scores in Contrived Written Language, as well as in Applied Problems
in mathematics. Based on her testing, Isabel will need support in basic reading
decoding skills and in transferring those skills to written expression. In
addition, Isabel was limited when a subtest had a time constraint. She
was able to do the work but had difficulty when she had to finish in a specific
amount of time. She will need assistance to increase her fluency skills.
Isabel's strength is in mathematical skills. Overall the biggest discrepancy
is between her math abilities and her reading/written language. These
results are also supported by the fact that she attends general education
for math and that her time on task in math class is excellent. Isabel will
be monitored in mathematics depending on her scores on PACT and MAPS starting
in 3rd grade.
Based on the results additional instruction and curriculum based assessment
in reading to pinpoint specific phonetic weaknesses would be appropriate.
In addition curriculum based assessment related to the mechanics of written
language would be helpful.
<Next you will develop the IEP: Please note that much of what you have written
in this report will be used to develop your IEP and may even be redundant but this provides practice for developing an IEP.>
IEP
Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance
Describe the academic and functional strengths and needs of the
student Isabel is a second grader who gets along well with her classmates and teacher. She is not disruptive in class but is frequently passive and does not participate unless addressed by the teacher. She is a student with above average ability, whose achievement testing shows relative strength in math and weakness in reading and writing. Although Isabel is reading at grade level, she is not fluent. Her most recent curriculum based measure (CBM) testing showed that she read 33 words per minute, whereas her peers are reading at least 50 wpm. Isabel is weak in her decoding skills for vowel digraphs and recognizing vowels patterns. Given her weaknesses in reading, her mathematics will need to be monitored as she encounters work with reading involved. Isabel's weaknesses in reading and writing will affect her progress in the general education curriculum.
Does the student’s behavior warrant a Functional Behavioral
Assessment? (If YES include the findings)
Reporting of Assessment:
Option 1 for reporting assessment - long format
Type: Academic or Functional Assessment: Type: Academic or Functional Assessment: Type: Academic or Functional Option 2 for reporting assessment - Chart. Type Areas of Assessment Method of Assessment Date Findings Academic Basic Reading
& Reading Comprehension WJIII Brigance Date In reading
fluency, Isabel has improved since 1st grade from reading
9 words per minute to 33 words per minute. But she is still behind her
grade peers who are reading, between 50 and 106 words correct per minute.
Needs strategies for word attack and decoding to continue building on
fluency and her developing phonic skills. Isabel scored in the 16th
percentile rank which is low average compared to her peers in letter
word identification. Isabel scored in the
24th percentile rank in reading comprehension which is at
the lowest end of the average range compared to her peers. She performed
better with silent reading comprehension than oral. Academic Math Calculation WJIII Date Isabel
scored in the 47rd percentile rank for her broad mathematics
score and is performing in the average range. Academic Written Expression WJIII Curriculum based Date Complete information here Functional Based on the student’s disability describe accommodations (supplementary
aids) needed to participate and progress in the general curriculum.
Consider instructional and classroom management types of accommodations.
(include a short description of the accommodations needed for high stakes assessments as well as other accommodations that could be used in the general education classroom)
Accommodations to the General Education Curriculum: Based on the student's disability describe accommodations or supplementary aids needed to participate and progress in the general curriculu. Consider specific instruction and classroom management types of accommodations.
Oral administration of assessments that measure other subjects than basic reading skills. Modifications to the General Education Curriculum:
Accommodations for High Stakes Assessment:
Modifications for High Stakes Assessment:
none.
Final Report Rubric Scoring based on points total 35 CC8S3 Use technology to conduct assessments. CC8S2 Administer non-biased informal assessment. Correct use of CBM to take weekly progress monitoring and present in graph format. Recommend for general education & adaptations (8)
Return to EDEX 790 Syllabus: http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/edex790.html Last updated August, 2011. 
Average= SS 90 to 110 and % Rank 25 to 75
Low Average = SS 80 to 89 and % Rank 9 to 24
Low = SS 70 to 79 and % Rank3 to 8
Very Low = SS 69 and below and % Rank 0.1 to 2
Percentile ranks and Standard scores are
based on age and not grade placement because Isabel is older than most students
in the second grade.
Subtest
Standard Score
(68% confidence band)Percentile Ranks
Grade Equivalent
Age Equivalent
Letter-Word Identification
84 (81-85)
16
2.1
7-5
Reading Fluency
81 (78-82)
10
1.7
7-0
Passage Comprehension
89 (86-91)
24
2.0
7-4
Broad Reading
82 (79-85)
12
7-3
Calculation
93 (91-95)
32
2.4
7-9
Math Fluency
101(98-104)
52
3.0
8-5
Applied Problems
104 (102-107)
61
3.1
8-8
Broad Mathematics
99 (96-102)
47
8-3
Spelling
86 (82-90)
18
1.8
7-6
Writing Fluency
87 (82-91)
19
2.1
7-2
Writing Samples
98 (93-101)
46
2.4
8-2
Broad Written Language
87 (81-91)
19
Sound Awareness
100 (96-102)
51
2.8
8-5
Summary of Test & Level Placed
Word Recognition: First Grade Level
Oral Reading: Upper Second Grade Level
Reading Comprehension: Upper Second Grade Level
and how the disability affects involvement and progress in the
general curriculum.
Area of Assessment:
Method of Assessment:
Findings:
Area of Assessment:
Method of Assessment:
Findings:
Area of Assessment:
Method of Assessment:
Findings:
Functional Behavior
Observation
Date
Include observations of behavior, attention, time on task, attitude toward work.
Continued monitoring of mathematics
Small group instruction for reading and phonics.
Begin instruction in word processing.
None at this time.
At this time Isabel does not take any high stakes assessments but next year she will be included in state wide testing.
Oral administration of areas outside of reading.
Possible scribe for writing.
Small group administration.
Category
Standards
Full Credit
Reduction
Quality of CBM and trend graph and and discussion of additional probes(10)
CC8S3 Use technology to conduct assessments.
CC8S5 Interpret information from informal assessments
CC8S6 Use assessment to make program decisions
Use of CBM to create one measureable goal for the IEP. Use CBM data to create a goal based on a prediction or recommendation for progress. Create a demonstration graph (3 baseline points, goal point and projected aimline; 6 additional data points from weekly assessments.)Reduction taken if CBM graph produced incorrectly, incorrrect or missing data collection or misintrepretations. No trend line for the data points.
Quality & interpretation of Information- WJIII Test (10)
CC8K1 Basic terminology used in assessment.
CC8K4 Use and limitations of assessment instruments.
CC8S2 Administer nonbiased formal assessments.Correct format for presentation (see example). Correct discussion of the grade or age scores and level of functioning. Comments about individual items that might have affected test results. Comparison of tests within general areas. At least one paragraph discussion for each broad subtest. Include ranges for the subtests Ð low, averageÉ Comparison of tests between areas. Summary of all assessment with WJIII
Reduction taken for missing information or incorrect format for presentation of tests or incorrect scoring of any tests.
Quality & interpretation of Information-
PLAAFP (7)
CC8S6 Use assessment information in making eligibility, program, and placement decisions for individuals with ELN, including those from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Area of strengths and weaknesses addressed in depth based on information from the report. The report explains use and limitations of assessments.
Reduction taken for missing information on the areas of strengths and
weaknesses addressed based on information from the report.
CC8K5 National, state or provincial, and local accommodations and modifications.
Information from report used to make recommendations for accommodations or modifications in general education. This also includes ideas on collaboration with general education and necessary supports needed for progress.
Reduction taken if the recommendations do not include accommodations, modifications for general ed. Reduction taken if the recommendations do not include accommodations, modifications for high stakes testing.