Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Okabe Section 3
Okabe Section 3
Synthesis of Standards
ILA Standard 3 and IDA Standard D are perfectly aligned as they both discuss the need
for and use of valid and reliable assessments. The literacy specialist is required to have a firm
basic knowledge of what assessments are available for screening, diagnosing, and tracking
student achievement through the use of progress monitoring. The competent literacy specialist
is able to administer these assessments, interpret the results, then communicate effectively any
informing curricular decisions. The literacy specialist is to take the results and plan effective
When examining differences, IDA Standard D focuses more on the diagnostic in that
they specifically identify the range of skills that are typically assessed in a diagnostic survey
(including phonological skills, decoding skills, oral reading skills, spelling, and writing). This is
expected as assessments under IDA Standards will help literacy specialists and teachers
engage in the crucial process of referring students to be evaluated for qualification for special
education services. Progress monitoring also is a piece of IDA standards as the referral process
of students for special education services requires data points based on evidence-based
interventions over time. ILA Standard 3 specifically includes a component that has the literacy
specialist collaborating with colleagues in the assessment process. I appreciate that ILA
Standard 3 has literacy specialists recognize limitations associated with certain assessments –
not all assessments are good for everything. Also ILA Standard 3 contains a component where
and using results for instructional decision making at the classroom and school level.
When considering what this means to me as a literacy specialist, I think about all of the
available assessments for literacy skills. Regardless of the publisher, it is my duty as a literacy
specialist to be familiar with the skills that are being tested. I must be able to sit down with
colleagues and discuss the data that has been brought together to give us a snapshot of the
student’s performance. Moreover, I firmly believe it is important that when (as ILA Standard 3.1
states) we understand the purpose of the assessment, we ensure that snap judgements of the
student are not made. A deficit model should never be employed as students are discussed. We
know what is being tested, how it is being tested, interpret the results, and move forward to plan
Summary of Artifacts
general questions surrounding the CBM. We responded to how CBMs would be used in the
specific scenarios and possible next steps moving forward in planning and implementing
instruction.
administering diagnostic tests to determine the student’s level, planning intervention lessons,
then ultimately reflecting upon the success or lack of progress of the student. Assessments
were administered and analyzed. Lesson plans were created based on the data collected.
Evidence of Application
With these two artifacts, it proves my abilities surrounding assessment. This includes ILA
Standard 3 and IDA Standard 2. In the IRIS module, I reviewed the data that was given in the
situations and was able to plan next steps based on the data (ILA 3.2). I carefully considered
the standard guidelines when reviewing and interpreting the data presented after an intervention
was implemented (IDA D3). As a CBM Is one method of monitoring progress, I demonstrated
my familiarity with the process of progress monitoring (IDA D1). In the Literacy Learner Case
and planning for future instruction based on the interpretation of results. Because Juan is a
struggling reader, I needed to be more familiar with the diagnostic surveys and skills that are
assessed for struggling readers (IDA D4). I needed to choose an assessment that was both
valid and reliable (ILA 3.1 and IDA D2). The CORE phonics was administered. Juan’s oral
reading fluency (ORF) was tracked using a graph on the DIBELS progress monitoring booklet
(IDA D3). Two specific lessons were designed and implemented based on the data collected
from the diagnostic assessments (ILA 3.2). Most importantly, I was able to reflect at the end of
the process about the effectiveness of the intervention lessons. I considered Juan, his
background, his family life, and piece together a whole picture of the student. Assessment must
consider all aspects of the student, not just how the student performed on a test. Through the
process of identifying Juan as a struggling reader, administering reliable and valid assessments,
interpreting the results, and implementing instruction (interventions) I was able to successfully