Review of Existing Evaluation Data (REED)

Andrew Miron
10/31/13
Participants in the Evaluation Plan
Participant Name
Mrs. Jones
Mrs. Winters
Mrs. Smith
Mrs. Trussell
Andrew Miron
Mrs. Weatherford

Participant Title
Parent
3rd Grade Teacher
4th Grade Teacher
School Psychologist
Special Education Teacher
Speech/Language Pathologist

Means of Participation
In Person
In Person
In Person
In Person
In Person
In Person

Review of input from parent

During parent teacher conferences with Junes mother, her mother indicated that June is
reluctant to go to school this year and cries regularly before leaving. She also indicated that the
struggle continues at home with homework and motivating her to complete them is a constant
battle. Junes mother did report that she enjoys doing art projects and playing outdoors. She is
good at dance and gymnastics and seems to have a good memory of events and facts.
Note: Possibly use bodily-kinesthetic or art integration to increase motivation in social studies
and language arts.
Review of existing evaluation data
June Jones is a 4th grade student who from various formative and summative assessments
appears to be struggling in school. However, things did not always appear this way. From data
that has been collected June had a normal start to her school career. She attended two years of
preschool and began Kindergarten on time. She was recommended to stay another year because
of her readiness skills, but other than that all was clear. Her attendance has always been good,
never missing more than five days a year which indicates that she has at least been in school all

the time. She has always been described as a student with good work ethic, a positive attitude,
and having strong parental support. Once she started early elementary it became more apparent
which areas she struggled in. Her teachers reported that she had average math skills, but also
described her as a slow reader causing her to be below grade level at the end of each year. When
she got to third grade her grades were as follows: Math (B+), Language Arts (C-), Science (B-),
Social Studies (D-), and Writing (D+). Her third grade teacher reported that June did not appear
to be off task more than any of her peers, but now in fourth grade, her teacher notices that June is
disinterested or distracted at certain times in the day. One thing the two teachers agreed on was
that June had difficulty using word attack or word analysis skills to sound words out. She would
often recognize the first letter of word and then guess the rest of it. This difficulty causes her to
sound slow and choppy when she reads.
While June was in third grade there was some summative data that also supported her
observed struggles in reading and writing. When June began 3rd grade it was observed that she
had interest in Math. Although she started the year below grade level, she attained at 94% the
first trimester and by the end of the year she had the STAR math grade equivalent of 3.8; right
around grade level. Math was not something that particularly concerned her teachers. Her
reading scores however, throughout the year were consistently below grade level. June began the
year mastering a good amount of sight words at 113 which was at grade level. For the reminder
of the year she was able to maintain her pace. From that statistic it appears that she would be able
to read, but her real issue came with fluency. At the beginning of the year she was only able to
read at a 41 words correct per minute and only increased to 63 WCM by the end of the year. This
was still significantly below her grade level and fell in at a second grade level as she headed into

fourth. As a result of her poor fluency at the end of her third grade year she was given a STAR
reading grade equivalent of 1.5.
Upon reaching 4th grade Junes teacher Mrs. Smith was able to conduct her own types of
observations along with formative and summative assessments. Mrs. Smith decided that to start
off with her observational data she was going to see throughout a week how often and when June
was off task. After creating a scatterplot assessment it was apparent that June was consistently
off task each day during ELA work and during silent reading. She also was consistently off task
during social studies. These were also the areas that she struggled with in 3 rd grade. From this
data it was difficult to determine whether June was off task because she was disinterested or
because she was simply struggling with the material. The formative and summative data made
things more clear on what was the root of the problem. To start as a benchmark Mrs. Smith had
June compete several CBAs (Curriculum Based Assessments). In three different passage she
consistently had an accuracy of around 70% and since she was reading under 49 WCM and had 8
or more errors in each passage she was described as frustrated. Mrs. Smith then started working
with passages that were at a second grade level. Junes accuracy increased considerably to a
point where she was above 90% on all of the passages. Her comprehension was spot on for the
passages however, once again her fluency struggled. She was only able to read at around 55
WCM placing her in the Instructional/Frustration description for readings that are for students
two grades below her. As there are a more variety of records kept on June it starts to become
more apparent what her core issue may be. June was then tested directly on fluency at a second
grade and fourth grade level and think these were the most apparent formative and summative
assessments that she took. At a second grade level she was able to maintain high accuracy and
fell in the middle of the pack at the 50th percentile. However when she moved to third grade

material although she was fairly accurate at 89% her fluency had her in the 25 th percentile. At her
grade level of fourth she struggled at all parts of reading. Her accuracy dropped to 68% and she
was below the 25th percentile. When presented with three different passages at a 3 rd grade level
things were not much different. She was very accurate with most of her words and showed good
comprehension however, the amount of words she was able to say really hurt her fluency, having
her end up in lower than the 25th percentile each time.
With all this data in mind, Mrs. Smith, Junes 4 th grade teacher made various
accommodations for June. This included her reading her trimester math assessment and choices
aloud to her. In addition, she had a peer buddy read curriculum material to her, read tests aloud to
her, and provided modified, patterned spelling lists and not grading for spelling on any of her
writing assessments. After the first trimester of 4 th grade June was graders were as follows: Math
(B+), Language Arts (C-), Science (B-), Social Studies (B-), and Writing (C-). Mrs. Smith said
she is certain that without the accommodations, Junes grades would be much lower. Junes math
scores through the first few months of the school year were almost average if not just slightly
below. Her STAR Math scores were 3.8 in September and 4.2 in December meaning she is only
slightly behind. However, her reading scores, although they have improved slightly over the
course of the year have not made much of a change from the end of her 3rd grade year. Of the 220
sight words required to be identified by 4th grade students, in September June was able to identify
143 and only 163 by December. Her Rigby Level between September and December did not
change and stayed at a score of 20. Her words correct per minute showed the greatest concern
when it was only 53 WCM in September and 60 WCM in December. I feel that the biggest
assessment that displays her deficiencies is the DIBELS ORF fluency score. As I previously
believed, her fluency is below grade level and it was apparent with her 41 WCM and 48 WCM in

September and December respectively. These numbers are both equivalent of students who are in
third grade, not a student almost half way done with fourth. The STAR reading level was a good
culmination score of all the different reading assessments giving her a 1.5 and 1.9 grade
equivalent in September and December respectively. With all the data presented I think that the
best course of action would be to implement at fluency specific intervention plan for June.
Assessment Area
Achievement Testing

Staff Conducting Evaluation

Special Education Teacher

Cognitive Processing

School Psychologist

Language

Speech Pathologist

Data and Assessment Needed

Informal and/or standardized
achievement measures
Cognitive processing
measures
Language processing
measures