wisconsin pcl center | pcl center at the school district ...€¦ · web viewuniversal screeners...

Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria

This document addresses how CIM meetsWisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Rule:

Introduction:

Quality reading instruction in the primary grades is the single best defense against reading

failure. Effective instruction requires that teachers focus on the relationship between letters and

sounds, how words work, the process of obtaining meaning from print, and practicing for fluency.

Research indicates that teachers should develop students’ comprehension by building linguistic and

conceptual knowledge beginning in the earliest grades and fluency throughout the primary by

providing rich opportunities to read and reread authentic texts (Snow, Burns, & Griffen, 1998 as cited

by Kentucky Department of Education).

Children with reading problems need more focused, more intense, and more individualized

instruction. Schools with greater numbers of at-risk children should have extra resources to provide

the instruction needed to prevent and address reading problems. Whole class teaching, typically fails

to address the needs of the lowest achieving students (Snow, Burns, & Griffen, 1998 as cited by the

Kentucky Department of Education).

What is Intervention?

Generally speaking, an intervention is “the systematic use of a technique, program or practice

designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of pupil need” [Wis. Admin. Code § PI

11.02(6t)]. The SLD rule, however, specifies higher standards for the interventions that must be

implemented before an IEP team can make an SLD eligibility decision. Data collected during two

intensive, scientific research-based or evidence-based interventions (SRBIs) in each area of SLD

concern are required to determine insufficient progress, and the interventions must be completed

2 CIM Fidelity

before the required standardized testing used to determine inadequate classroom achievement is

administered (p. 24, Wisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Rule: A Technical Guide for

Determining the Eligibility of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities)

http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/files/sped/pdf/sld-guide.pdf

The standards for SRBIs used when applying the SLD criteria include:

Scientific research-based or evidence-based (substantial documented scientific evidence of

effectiveness); See Appendix A

Use with individual or small groups; See Appendix B

Focus on single or small number of discrete skills closely aligned to individual learning needs

(consistent with the area of SLD concern)- See figure 1 and Appendix A;

Culturally appropriate- See figure 2;

A substantial number of instructional minutes beyond what is provided to all students- See

figure 1;

Implemented with adequate fidelity- See figure 1 & Appendix C

Applied in a manner highly consistent with its design- See figure 1;

At least 80% of the recommended number of weeks, sessions, minutes- See figure 1

[Wis. Admin. Code §§ PI 11.02 (1), (4e), (6m), (12) and PI 11.36 (6)(f)4.]

Figure 1: Targeted literacy areas and standards addressed within each scientific, researched based intervention

http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/files/sped/pdf/sld-guide.pdf


Reading Recovery SLD

Areas:

Oral expression

Listening

comprehension

Written expression

Basic reading skill

Reading fluency skill

(See Appendix A)

Interactive Writing SLD

Areas:

Oral expression

Listening

comprehension

Written expression

Basic reading skill


(See Appendix A)

**Guided Reading Plus SLD

Areas:

Oral expression

Listening comprehension

Written expression

Basic reading skill


(See Appendix A)

**Writing Aloud SLD Areas:

Oral expression


Written expression

Basic reading skill


(See Appendix A)

Comprehension Focus Group

SLD Areas:

Oral expression


Written expression

Basic reading skill


(See Appendix A)

Intervention Program Standards

30 minutes 5x week

Delivered one-to-one

Student progress is

expected within 20

weeks of use

*assuming

compliance with

accountability

measures

Progress monitoring

must be consistent

with the Reading

Recovery program

design.


30 minutes

Minimum 4x week

Recommended group

size as a Tier II

intervention is 4-5 and

as a Tier III intervention

is 2-3

Student progress is

expected within 20

weeks of use

*assuming compliance

with accountability

measures


30 minutes

Minimum 4x week (when

paired with Writing Aloud

intervention both

interventions together need

to total 5x week)

Recommended group size

as a Tier II intervention is

4-5 and as a Tier III

intervention is 2-3

Student progress is

expected within 20 weeks

of use *assuming

compliance with

accountability measures


30 minutes

Minimum 4x week (when

paired with Writing Aloud

intervention both

interventions together need

to total 5x week)


as a Tier II intervention is

4-5 and as a Tier III

intervention is 2-3

Student progress is

expected within 20 weeks

of use *assuming

compliance with


30 minutes

Minimum 4x week for

elementary grades and

minimum 3x week in

secondary grades


as a Tier II intervention is 4-

5 and as a Tier III

intervention is 2-3

Student progress is

expected within 20 weeks of

use *assuming compliance

with accountability measures

If progress is being made,

4 CIM Fidelity

Intervention team

meetings must occur

weekly and in

keeping with the

program design.

OS by Marie Clay is

used as a pre and

post assessment.

The school MUST

already have a

comprehensive

evidence-based core

reading

program/model in

place for Tier 1 (core

instruction for all

students).

Intervention reading

services must

supplement, not

replace, regular

classroom reading

instruction.

If progress is being

made, but is not

accelerated

(determined by

Intervention Team) a

comprehensive

analysis of data is

conducted, including

observations in

classroom and

intervention learning

settings, to determine a

new course of action.

The new course of

action may include

layering additional

interventions and/or

targeting specific skills

within the current

intervention.

If no progress is being

made, an alternate

intervention may be

considered.

Accountability Measures for

Interactive Writing

Intervention: See

Interventions That Work p.


but is not accelerated

(determined by


comprehensive analysis of

data is conducted,

including observations in

classroom and

intervention learning

settings, to determine a

new course of action. The

new course of action may

include layering additional


targeting specific skills

within the current

intervention.


made, an alternate

intervention may be

considered.


Guided Reading Plus

Intervention: See Interventions

That Work p. 23

Monitor Progress every 3-4

accountability measures



(determined by


comprehensive analysis of

data is conducted,

including observations in

classroom and intervention

learning settings, to

determine a new course of

action. The new course of

action may include layering

additional interventions

and/or targeting specific

skills within the current

intervention.


made, an alternate

intervention may be

considered.


Writing Aloud Intervention: See

Interventions That Work p. 23



(determined by Intervention

Team) a comprehensive

analysis of data is

conducted, including

observations in classroom

and intervention learning

settings, to determine a new

course of action. The new

course of action may include

layering additional


targeting specific skills within

the current intervention.


made, an alternate

intervention may be

considered.

Accountability Measures for CFG

Intervention:

Monitor Progress every 3-4 weeks

using:

Anecdotal notes

A cold read running record


23


weeks using:

Anecdotal notes

Writing Samples

A cold read running

record with standardized

book introduction to

determine text reading

level (aim line used to

graph accelerated

progress)

CIM Reading Rubric

CIM Writing Rubric

Other CIM assessments

as deemed appropriate

by Intervention Team

weeks using:

Anecdotal notes

a cold read running record

with standardized book

introduction to determine

text reading level (aim line

used to graph accelerated

progress)

Fluency scale

CIM Comprehension

Checklist

CIM Reading Rubric

CIM Writing Rubric

Other CIM assessments as

deemed appropriate by

Intervention Team

weeks using:

Anecdotal notes

A cold read running record


introduction to determine

text reading level (aim line

used to graph accelerated

progress)

Fluency scale

CIM Comprehension

Checklist

CIM Reading Rubric

CIM Writing Rubric



Intervention Team


introduction to determine text

reading level (aim line used to

graph accelerated progress)

CIM Reading Rubric

CIM Writing Rubric



Intervention Team

**Recommended as layered interventions as necessary for students

not making accelerated progress in identified areas of concern.

6 CIM Fidelity

Implementation Standards for all CIM Interventions:

1. ASSESSMENT - The struggling readers participating in CIM intervention services MUST be initially

identified using a universal screener or the assessment chosen by the school/district. Additional

criteria/assessments (e.g., classroom performance data, school level assessments, teacher input)

MUST be used to qualify students. In order to have a standard measure of progress,

interventionists MUST administer a diagnostic assessment at least twice per year to all eligible

primary level students who qualified for the intervention. Baseline assessments MUST be

administered in the fall and post-tests must be administered in the spring. See Appendix D for

Examples of Assessment Types

2. ALIGNMENT TO CORE - The school MUST already have a comprehensive evidence-based core

reading program/model in place for Tier 1 (core instruction for all students). CIM intervention

reading services must supplement, not replace, regular classroom reading instruction. All

identified struggling readers MUST receive the school’s core reading program/strategies as well as

the CIM intervention services; the intervention services for identified students must be over and

above their classroom’s reading instruction time.

3. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER - The interventionist MUST be trained in the CIM interventions. It is

highly recommended that the interventionist attend continuous professional development in the

CIM interventions. The intervention teacher’s daily responsibility must be primarily devoted to the

delivery of intervention instruction to identified struggling readers. Paraprofessionals are not

considered highly qualified teachers for CIM interventions.

4. SCHOOL LEADERSHIP - The building principal must monitor the implementation of the CIM

interventions.

5. INTERVENTION TEAM – It is strongly recommended that schools using the CIM interventions

establish an intervention team (e.g. intervention teacher, principal, classroom teacher, reading

specialist (if possible)). This team may by the RtI team as well. The parent/guardian of the

identified student should also be considered part of the intervention team as it pertains to his/her

child. The role of the intervention team is to:

Collaborate to develop and monitor reading intervention plans for identified students

Coordinate resources (materials and/or personnel) for struggling


readers

Meet on a regular basis to:

Review recommendations (based on additional criteria/assessments) to determine

intervention eligibility

Discuss and determine the plan for exiting individual students from the intervention

6. COLLABORATION TEAM MEETING- Collaborative Intervention Team meeting between classroom

teacher and interventionist to analyze data and, align instructional goals and language (Meeting

should occur every 2-3 weeks and use standard collaboration form)

Using Additional Sources of Data When Considering Inadequate Classroom Achievement

Systematic observation of routine classroom instruction, which is also required by the rule,

provides data about how the student performs in the classroom in the 7Wisconsin’s Specific Learning

Disabilities (SLD) Rule 57 area(s) of concern identified in the referral. The data gathered during

systematic observation about the student’s academic achievement can be compared to other formal

and informal achievement data to establish consistency among various sources of data. It is

important to triangulate data, comparing different types of data to look for consistency or

inconsistency among the results. Other formal and informal data should also be considered as the IEP

team analyzes data to determine whether the referred student demonstrates inadequate classroom

achievement. Comparisons of formal and informal data, standardized achievement test results, and

data from observation help verify that a student’s inadequate classroom achievement is indicative of

the impairment of SLD. Formative and summative assessments linked to grade level standards and

student work samples can be useful for this purpose.

Formal and Informal Sources of Data

Federal and state law require IEP teams conduct a full and individual evaluation to determine

whether a student is a student with a disability eligible to receive special education services. The IEP

8 CIM Fidelity

team must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional,

developmental, and academic information about the student including information provided by the

parent. No 864 Required Data Sources for Evaluation Activities single measure can be used as the sole

criterion for making an eligibility determination [34 CFR § 300.304(b)]. Data collection begins with the

review of existing data by the IEP team and the decision concerning what, if any, additional data are

needed to conduct a full and individual evaluation, to make an eligibility determination and, if

appropriate, to develop an IEP. When considering SLD certain specific data are always required i.e.

scores from a standardized achievement test, data from progress monitoring probes, and systematic

observation data. However, information from other sources is also important and necessary for

considering all three SLD eligibility criteria and need for special education. Reviewing a variety of data

during an IEP team evaluation discussion includes examination of formal assessments as well as

formal and informal data sources about the student’s classroom work and approach to learning.

Some examples of formal and informal data sources include:

Standardized, individually administered, norm referenced tests;

Classroom achievement measures aligned with common core grade level standards;

Classroom assessment data such as criterion referenced tests, quizzes, informal inventories,

rubrics, checklists, and rating scales;

Formative and summative data linked to grade level standards;

Data from instruction such as work samples and products.

Informal and other formal data collection measures will vary by school building, subject, curriculum,

instructional methodology and teacher. The IEP team may record information from formal and

informal sources of data on DPI sample form ER-1, Evaluation Report, an appropriate sample SLD

Eligibility forms ER- 2A, ER-2B or ER-2C, or any other attachment to the evaluation report.

Note: The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OS) by Marie Clay (which includes

running records) received the highest possible ratings for scientific rigor from the National Center on

Response for Intervention. See the NCRTI comparison ratings between the OS, DIBELS, AIMSweb, MAP,

PALS, easyCBM and other commonly used assessments in WI. NCRTI Ratings for

OS:DIBELS:AIMS.pdf150 KB

http://www.rti4success.org/resources/ tools-charts/screening-tools-chart

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=028d72e9d9&view=att&th=144a2317c84ff7c6&attid=0.1.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=028d72e9d9&view=att&th=144a2317c84ff7c6&attid=0.1.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw


Figure 2: When to begin probes for measuring progress with CIM

The CIM interventions derive from and are tightly aligned to the balanced literacy framework for

teaching literacy acquisition. This model subscribes to the belief system that reading, writing,

speaking and listening share a reciprocal relationship and are acquired through “interactive learning

in social contexts” (Dorn and Jones, 2012) using culturally relevant, authentic texts.

Because the CIM interventions are based on the cognitive apprenticeship theory, assessments that

inform instruction are those that reveal how students use knowledge and skills to read and write.

Therefore, measuring discrete skills in isolation does not provide helpful information. Item

knowledge and skills are necessary but not enough to improve reading and writing proficiency. Again,

knowing letters and sounds and sight words and spelling are only useful inasmuch as the student

actively employs the knowledge and skills through a self-regulated decision making process in the act

of reading and writing. Thus, it is recommended that probes of discrete skills only begin when it is

determined that a child is not making progress in the intervention and that all other RtI components

have failed to set the student on a positive trajectory path. Using probes prematurely encourages

interventionists to shift their focus away from teaching for strategic processing and instead

encourages the interventionist to teach for accumulation of item knowledge. Such a shift in teaching

focus would jeopardize the fidelity of the intervention. If the student does not make progress within

the timelines of the intervention, then a baseline can be established and then probes, which meet WI

law, can be initiated. See below for use of probes.

Method for Determining Insufficient Progress Using Data from Intensive Intervention to Determine Insufficient Progress:

There are basic steps that are part of establishing a data collection process during a Scientific,

Research Based Intervention (SRBI).

1. Establish baseline;

10 CIM Fidelity

2. Begin the intervention and collect weekly or more frequent progress monitoring data using a PM

probe; and

3. Use the baseline and progress monitoring data collected at least weekly to analyze progress.

Note the following exclusionary factors for SLD eligibility (If one or more factors apply, the student is not a student with a disability and is not eligible for special education):

The student does not meet general education expectations primarily because:

Environmental, cultural, or economic factors

Limited English proficiency

Lack of appropriate instruction in oral expression, listening comprehension, written

expression, basic reading skills, or reading comprehension


Appendix A: Compliance with the SLD Eligibility Criteria: Instructional practices supported by research

Intervention SLD Areas

Components of Intervention

Research Base

Reading Recovery

*Foundational skills including Phonological

Awareness and Phonics (Basic

Reading/Decoding)

Phonemic Awareness-Children study letters and connect them to sounds through working with magnetic letters and building words. Teachers demonstrate how to take words apart by segmenting them into sounds and how to make new words by adding, deleting, or substituting letters. In the process of writing a message: Children analyze phonemes in words and represent them with letters, they say words slowly, segmenting them into the sounds they hear, they check written words by blending phonemes together. As children orally read and reread texts, the teacher demonstrate ways to use phonemic awareness and letter-sound relationships to monitor reading accuracy and to solve new words. Phonics- Using books that provide opportunities to apply principles they are learning, the teacher shows children how to: identify and work with syllables in spoken words, identify and work with onsets and rimes in spoken syllables, identify and work with individual phonemes in spoken words as strategies for solving unfamiliar words. In writing, children learn to record the sounds they hear in words and notice the sequence of sounds.

Pinnell 1997; Pinnell,G.S.& McCarrier A.,1994What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading Recovery,2013Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading Recovery, 2008Shanahan & Barr, 1995Heibert, 1994Wasilk & Slavin, 1993Herman & Stringfield, 1997

*Fluency Fluency-Teach for fluent reading on carefully selected continuous texts that are not too difficult. Provide many opportunities for oral reading. Provide opportunities for multiple readings of familiar texts.

Pinnell 1997; Pinnell,G.S.& McCarrier A.,1994What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading Recovery,2013Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading Recovery, 2008Shanahan & Barr, 1995Heibert, 1994Wasilk & Slavin, 1993

12 CIM Fidelity

Herman & Stringfield, 1997

*Comprehension and Vocabulary

Development

Comprehension- Introduce texts by activating prior knowledge about the story and building experiences needed to enhance understanding, build connections during and after reading to support understanding, have meaningful conversations about the text, hold the child accountable for meaning during oral reading through such prompts as “Did that make sense?” examine records of oral reading behavior for evidence of meaning-making and adjust teaching objectives accordingly, teach for comprehension when children are writing as well as when they are reading. The reciprocal nature of the two processes will be mutually supportive. Vocabulary- use magnetic letters to explore how words work, teach the child how to use analogies or spelling patterns to write new words, teach for word solving of new and unfamiliar words when children are writing as well as when they are reading.


*WritingThe reciprocal nature of the reading and writing processes will support children’s word-learning strategies. Reading Recovery daily lessons include a child’s writing of a self-generated story.




Research Base

Guided Reading Plus

*Foundational skills including Phonological

Awareness and Phonics (Basic

Reading/Decoding)

Phonological Awareness Phonics Instruction

Guided ReadingWriting About Reading One to

One Conferences

NRP 2000b; Davis, 2000; Goswami &

East, 2000;Paris, Lipson, & Wixson.

2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R.

B. & Unrau, N.1994;Leslie, L. & Allen, L.

1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R., 2005


*Fluency

Guided Reading Independent Reading One to

One Conferences

Begeny et al., 2009; Musti-Rao,

Hawkins, & Barkley, 2009; Guthrie, J. T.

Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K,1999;

Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.,2000


Development

Guided Reading

• Before Reading

• During Reading

• After Reading Independent Reading One to

One Conferences Vocabulary

Instruction

WWC report, Improving Reading

Comprehension K-3: Williamson et al.

2007; Paris, Cross, and Lipson, 1984;

Williamson, 1989; Brown et al. 1995;

Reutzel, Smith, and Fawson, 2005;

Schwartz, R.,1988; Williams, J. P. ,

1993

WritingWriting about Reading One to One

Conferences

Bond & Dykstra, 1997; Shanahan &

Lomax, 1986;Graham, S., & Harris, K.

R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986;Tierney R. J.

& Shanahan, T. ,1996


Components of Intervention Research Base

Assisted Writing: Interactive Writing

*Foundational Skills including Phonological

and Phonics (Basic Reading/Decoding)

Phonological AwarenessPhonics Instruction

Shared ReadingInteractive Writing (Concepts

of Print) Independent Writing

One to One Conferences

Ukrainetz et al. 2000; Torgesen, 2002;

Badian, 2001; Neuhaus & Swank,

2002;Craig, 2003, 2006;Scammacca et

al, 2007;Paris, Lipson, & Wixson.

2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R.

B. & Unrau, N.,1994;Leslie, L. & Allen,

14 CIM Fidelity

L. ,1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R,2005

*Fluency

Shared ReadingInteractive Writing (Concepts

of Print) Independent WritingOne to One

Conferences

Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Guthrie, J. T.

Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox,

K,1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.2000


Interactive Shared Reading Read-Aloud

Vocabulary InstructionInteractive Writing

(Concepts of Print) Independent Writing


Schickedanz and McGee, 2010;

Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal, 1997;

Hargrave & Senechal, 2000, Whitehurst

& Zevenbergen, 2003;

*Writing Interactive Writing (Concepts of Print) Independent Writing

Craig, 2003, 2006; Scammacca et. al, 2007;Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.

One to One Conferences 2005;Langer, J. 1986;Tierney R. J. & Shanahan, T. ,1996;Shanahan, T.,2006



Research Base

Assisted Writing: Writing Aloud

Foundational Skills including Phonological Awareness and Phonics (Basic Reading/Decoding)

Phonological Awareness Phonics InstructionShared ReadingWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent Writing


Paris, Lipson, & Wixson. 2002;Morrow, L. M. , 1992;Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N.,1994;Leslie, L. & Allen, L. ,1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R,2005

Fluency

Shared ReadingRead AloudWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent WritingOne to One Conferences

Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K, 1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.,2000

*Comprehension and VocabularyShared ReadingRead AloudVocabulary InstructionWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent Writing

Schmoker, 2006; Kuhrt & Farris, 1990; Dole et. al., 1996; Miller, 2002; Wilhelm, 2002

Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity CriteriaOne to One Conferences

*WritingWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent WritingOne to One Conferences

Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt, 2005; Cunningham, Cunninghap, & Allington, 2002; Wood, 2002; Ruddell, 1976; Moll, 2004; Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Dyson &Freedman, 2003; Farnan & Dahl, 2003; Hodges, 2003;Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986

Intervention SLD Areas Components of Intervention Research Base

Writing Process Groups in Classroom (Push-In)

Foundational Skills including Phonological Awareness and Phonics (Basic Reading/Decoding)

Phonological Awareness PhonicsWriting Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences

Paris, Lipson, & Wixson. 2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N.1994;Leslie, L. & Allen, L. ,1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R,2005

Fluency Shared ReadingRead AloudWriting Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences

Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K, 1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.2000

*Comprehension and Vocabulary Shared ReadingRead Aloud Vocabulary Instruction Writing Lesson Independent Writing

Williams, J. P. , 1993; Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. ,1990;Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. W., 1990

*Writing Writing Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences

Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J., 1997;Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986



Research Base

Comprehension Focus Groups:

Foundational Skills including Phonological Awareness and Phonics (Basic

Strategic reading instruction- taking words apart; using context clues; using affixesOne to

Mahurt, 2005; Fullerton & DeFord, 2000; Bhattacharaya & Ehri, 2004

16 CIM Fidelity

• Genre Studies

• Content Strategy Groups

Reading/Decoding) One ConferencesPenney, 2002;Paris, Lipson, & Wixson. 2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N.,1994

*Fluency

Reading Lesson Independent Reading Writing About Reading Writing Process


Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker., 2001;Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K., 1999;Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K,1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.2000


Reading LessonVocabulary InstructionText structure/feature instruction Independent ReadingOne to One Conferences Literature Discussion Groups

NPR, 2000’ Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 1998; Taylor, et. al. 2003; Stahl, 1999; Blachowicz & Fisher, 2005.Ambruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987;Dole, J., Brown, K, & Trathen, W. 1996;Jenkins, J.R., Stein, M. & Wysocki, K. ,1985; Schwartz, R. 1988

*Writing

Writing About Reading Writing Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986;Tierney R. J. & Shanahan, T. ,1996

*Highly targeted focus

.

18 CIM Fidelity

Appendix B: Group Sizes for Selected and Intensive Interventions in the Comprehensive Intervention Model

20 CIM Fidelity

Appendix C: Diagnostic Decision Making Process for CIM

Type of Assessment How the Assessment is Used Examples

Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity CriteriaUniversal Screener Universal Screeners are measures that are administered once at the beginning of a

school year. The purpose is to quickly determine whether students in a classroom may be at-risk for reading difficulties. Universal screeners should be short, quickly administered (between 5-10 minutes per child) and should have high predictive validity with word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. For example, a quality universal screener would be administered to all children in a classroom with the purpose of determining which students might be at risk. After determining those students who might be at risk, a more detailed diagnostic measure would be given to those children to determine whether they really were at risk and, if so, to help teachers determine areas of strength and need from which to begin instruction.

Yopp-Singer, San Diego Word List, Slosson, DIBELS,etc.

Diagnostic Assessment Diagnostic Assessments are measures that help teachers understand where to begin instruction with a child. These measures are administered after the universal screener. They are administered to children who were identified as being possibly at risk based on the universal screener.

Informal Reading Inventories, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, MAP, etc.

Progress Monitoring Assessment Progress Monitoring Measures are administered more frequently. These measures should be quick and easy to administer. They should provide guidance to the teacher about how the student is progressing toward an identified goal. They should also provide information to the teacher about possible changes that need to be made to instruction in order to reach the identified goal.

running records, miscue analysis, etc.

Outcome Measure Outcome Measures are administered at the end of the school year to assess whether the instruction provided was sufficient to help all students achieve grade-level reading standards. These assessments are typically group administered by the classroom teacher.

Stanford 10, ITBS, etc.

Appendix D: Examples of Assessment Types and their Use in CIM

wisconsin pcl center | pcl center at the school district ...€¦ · web viewuniversal screeners...

Documents