Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 44-55

  Deno, Stanley L ^a,g   Reschly, Amy L ^b   Lembke, Erica S ^c   Magnusson, Deanne ^a   Callender, Stacy A ^d   Windram, Holly ^e   Stachel, Nancy ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^d MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e St Croix River Education District   (United States)

^f St Paul Public Schools   (United States)

^g Psychology Department   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 59249106110     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: 15206807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20353     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Suido, S. M., Connell, J. E., Koenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., et al. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a MAZE and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 218-233.
2. Atlas Learning Communities. (2008). Authentic teaching, learning, and assessment for all students. Available at: www.atlascommunities.org.
3. Buck, J., & Torgeson, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCRR Technical Report #1). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research.
4. Children's Educational Services, Inc. (1987). Standard reading passages: Measures for screening and progress monitoring in reading. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
5. Deno, S., Anderson, A. R., Callender, S., Lembke, E., & Zorka, H. (2002, February). Developing a school-wide model for progress monitoring: A case example and empirical analysis. Symposium at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL.
6. Deno, S., Espin, C., & Fuchs, L. (2002). Evaluation strategies for preventing and remediating basic skill deficits. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches. Bethesda, MD: National Association, of School Psychologists.
7. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.
8. Espin, C., Deno, S., Maruyama, G., & Cohen, C. (1989). The Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS): An instrument for the screening and identification of children at risk for failure in regular education classrooms. Paper presented at the National Convention of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
9. Espin, C., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J. D. (2008). Creating a progress measurement system in reading for middle-school students: Monitoring progress towards meeting high stakes standards. Manuscript under review.
10. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
11. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Using curriculum-based measurement for progress monitoring. U.S. Department of Education: Strategies for Making Adequate Yearly Progress. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/admms/lead/account/aypstr/edlite-in. dex.html.
12. Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449-460.
13. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.
14. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 2.1(1), 45-58.
15. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55, 429-438.
16. Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance of decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257-288.
17. Grimes, J., & Tilly, W. D. (1996). Policy and process: Means to lasting educational change. School Psychology Review, 25, 465-476.
18. Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372-386.
19. Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and MAZE. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 421-432.
20. Kung, S.-H. (2007). Predicting the success on a state standards test for culturally and linguistically diverse students using curriculum-based oral reading measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
21. Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why to do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
22. Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187-200.
23. New American Schools. Available at: http://www.air.org/.
24. Prescott, G., Balow, I., Hogan, T., & Farr, R. (1992). Metropolitan Achievement Tests, Seventh Edition-Writing Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
25. Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 164-172.
26. Shinn, M. R. (1988). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
27. St. Paul Public Schools. (2006). English Language Learner Programs ELL Fact Sheet: Student Demographics. Downloaded May 20, 2008 from: http://www.ell.spps.org/sites/f6.15.1329-e58b-4abc-8e3f-3005439078c7/uploads/ Student-demographics.pdf.
28. Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(3), 128-134.
29. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795-819.
30. U. S. Department of Education. (2001). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). Retrieved July 25, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ES.EA02.
31. Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial & Special Education, 26(4), 207-214.