Phyllis K. Mirkin

The Effects of Frequent Curriculum-Based Measurement and Evaluation on Pedagogy, Student Achievement, and Student Awareness of Learning:

This study examined the educational effects of repeated curriculum-based measurement and evaluation. Thirty-nine special educators, each having three to four pupils in the study, were assigned randomly to a repeated curriculum-based measurement/evaluation (experimental) treatment or a conventional special education evaluation (contrast) treatment. Over the 18-week implementation, pedagogical decisions were surveyed twice; instructional structure was observed and measured three times; students’ knowledge about their learning was assessed during a final interview; reading achievement was tested before and after treatment. Analyses of covariance revealed that experimental teachers effected greater student achievement. Additional analyses indicated that (a) experimental teachers’ decisions reflected greater realism about and responsiveness to student progress, (b) their instructional structure demonstrated greater increases, and (c) their students were more aware of goals and progress.

Curriculum-Based Measurement: An Alternative To Traditional Screening, Referral, and Identification:

Curriculum-based measurement of academic performance is an alternative to traditional referral and assessment models in psychoeducational evaluation. This study contrasted a screening and referral procedure that used weekly measurement of performance in reading, spelling, and written expression with a traditional teacher-referral procedure. Students referred by the 2 methods were compared with respect to referral rate, cognitive functioning, achievement level, social behavior, sex differences, and identification as learning disabled. The number of students referred through curriculum-based measurement was similar to the number referred by teachers. In addition, the results indicated that academic achievement was almost the sole criterion used in teacher referral, although teacher-referred students were more likely to be rated as behavior problems. Finally, students referred through weekly achievement measurement were as likely to have an aptitude-achievement discrepancy as were students referred by teachers.

How to Write Effective Data-Based IEFs

• The procedure presented here represents a databased system for writing individualized education program (IEP) goals. It directly reflects the results of initial assessment and readily lends itself to systematic use throughout the school year. This procedure hinges on a simple (yet reliable and valid) measurement system specifically designed to evaluate general improvement in academic skills. The unique features of this system are frequent repeated measurement of student performance in the context of the local school curriculum, and measurement at a constant level of task difficulty. A specific level of performance on the task represents the longterm goal. Increases in level of performance on that task indicate that the student is making progress toward goal achievement.

MEASURING PUPIL PROGRESS TOWARD THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE

Urgent discussions of how to measure student progress toward special education program goals have begun to appear with greater frequency. The factors that seem to be most influential concerning pupil progress measurement are those associated with PL 94–142. Now, IEPs must be written that include specific objectives and time lines for monitoring program success. In addition, the “least restrictive environment” requirement implies that objectives be written, and progress be monitored relative to the skills required for placement and maintenance in the regular classroom. The present paper outlines the uses of pupil progress measurement, the desirable characteristics of progress measurement systems, and includes an evaluation of the adequacy of currently available data systems. Finally, two relatively recent alternatives to pupil progress measurement are recommended.

Current psychoeducational assessment and decision-making practices as reported by directors of special education

Abstract Questionnaire data from 100 directors of special education were analyzed to characterize the manner in which decisions are made about children in school settings. Information was obtained on the major steps in the assessment and decision-making process and major problems faced by directors in implementing the decision-making process. The results indicated that, although most directors agreed on some components of the process, there was considerable variation in their descriptions of how the process is carried out. The implications of the ressults for current educational practice are discussed.

Facilitating the Efficiency of On-Going Curriculum-Based Measurement.

This paper presents four studies that examine the time required to implement direct and frequent curriculum-based measurement (CBM) as well as strategies to improve the efficiency of CBM. Ten rural special education resource teachers were the subjects. The dependent data for all studies are the total amount of time required for CBM, including teacher preparation time, direction of students, and scoring and graphing. Teacher satisfaction with the various treatment conditions is also described. Study 1 compares the time required for CBM in initial training sessions and in subsequent classroom use. Studies 2 and 3 employ a single-subject design with the same baseline and treatment phases across 10 subjects. The independent variables are a specified order of administration of the CBM tasks (Study 2) and the establishment of a daily schedule of measurement (Study 3). Study 4 also employs a single case study methodology, reversal to baseline, but with teacher-selected independent variables including use of aides and machinery to administer CBM tasks, and group administration of the tasks. The independent variables proved to have varying effects on teacher efficiency. Implications for teaching practices are discussed.