Steele 1

Report of Educational Assessment

Student: Mitchell Smith Birth Date: 9/26/09
Parent: Karlie Smith Test Dates: 9/20/18 (BOSS)
9/13/18 (Informal)
9/27/18 (WJ IV)
11/5/18 (CTOPP-2)
BASELINE DATA:
11/5/18 (CMB, ORF 7)
11/6/18 (CMB, ORF 5)
11/7/18 (CBM, ORF 6)
INTERVENTION DATA:
11/12/18 (CBM, ORF 11)
11/19/18 (CBM, ORF 4)
11/28/18 (CBM, ORF 12)
11/29/18 (CBM, ORF 9)
12/3/18 (CBM, ORF 10)

Address: 1234 Sunny Lane

Sunnyville, MI 12345

Phone: (123) 456-7890 Age: 9-0

Primary Language: English Grade: 3.1
Referral Source: Kathy Easton (special education teacher)
Sandra Brown (general education teacher)
Examiner: Nicole Steele

REASON FOR REFERRAL

Mitchell Smith is currently a third-grade student in Mrs. Brown’s general education
class at Sunnyville Elementary School in Sunnyville Community School District. He
qualified for special education services in his second-grade year as a student with a specific
learning disabilities category in the areas of reading (basic reading skills, reading
comprehension, reading fluency), mathematics (mathematics calculation,
mathematics/problem solving) and writing (written expression). He was placed on an
intervention system for a year at Gullie Lake Community Schools during his first-grade
year. Those interventions showed limited success. For this reason, he was referred for
special education services. He is identified with having learning disabilities in the following
areas: basic reading skills, mathematics/problem solving, reading comprehension, reading
fluency, written expression, and math calculation. The current evaluation is being
conducted to update his current levels of reading and writing.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The information found in the following sections was obtained through a review of
Mitchell Smith’s CA60 file, an interview with Mitchell, Karlie Smith (his mother), and his
current teachers, Mrs. Brown (general education teacher) and Mrs. Easton (special
education resource room teacher).
 Steele 2

Home and Family

According to Mitchell and Ms. Smith, Mitchell currently lives with his mother, Karlie,
and sister, Harley (12 years old). Mitchell’s parents are divorced. His mother has full
custody of the children, and his father is absent from both of their lives. Both Mitchell and
Harley used to live with their grandmother full time, until about three years ago. Mrs. Smith
reported that their grandmother was not a disciplinarian at the household and reinforced
some behaviors that are current problems for him at school (e.g., whining, crying when he
does not get what he wants, and refusing to academic work) by giving him what he wanted
when he whined or cried about it enough. There is no history of learning difficulties in
their family.

Mrs. Smith stated that she is most concerned with his overall academic progress and
his socio-emotional progress. She is concerned that he is not making many friends at school
and that his behaviors are not always age appropriate (e.g., he cries about someone cutting
him in life, he cries when someone accidently steps on his foot, etc.). She is also concerned
that he is not progressing enough through his academic subjects. She stated that she is not
opposed to holding him back at the end of the year.

Medical and Developmental History

According to Mrs. Smith, there were no complications during her pregnancy or
delivery. Mitchell was born healthy. Mrs. Smith reported that Mitchell met his motor
milestones at the appropriate time. She also reported that his speech milestones were
delayed. He said his first word at one year old and started putting two to three words
together at two years old. He did not speak in full sentences until almost 4 years old.
Mitchell speaks English in the home, and he is proficient in the language.

Mitchell had many medical concerns throughout childhood. At age 3, he had heart
surgery due to acute diastolic congestive heart failure with a pulmonary edema. He takes
numerous medications at home for this. It is unknown the specifics of the medications he is
taking. His CA60 file indicates that he passed his hearing and vision screenings at the
beginning of second grade.

Educational History
Mitchell has attended four different schools since the start of Kindergarten in 2015.
He has attended North Paddlefield Elementary in Paddlefield Public Schools for his
Kindergarten year, Mc Pearin Elementary in Thornpear Kellogg Public Schools for his first-
grade year, Gullie Lake Elementary in Gullie Lake Public Schools for his second-grade year,
and he is currently attending Sunnyville Elementary School in Sunnyville Public Schools for
his third-grade year. Mitchell did not have a significant level of absences.

There was no previous report card or grade information available from previous
schools in the CA-60 file.

Mitchell took NWEA as a screening assessment this Fall of 2018. He had testing
accommodations while he was taking these tests. He took the test in an alternative testing
 Steele 3

area and had the test read aloud to him by the resource room teacher (Easton). In the
reading subtest of NWEA, he scored at a High Average range for Literacy Text: Key Ideas
and Details, at the Average range for Informational Text: Key Ideas and Details, at Average
range for Vocabulary: Acquisition and Use, at High Average range for Literary Text:
Language, Craft, and Structure, and at High Average range for Informational Text:
Language, Craft, and Structure. In the Language subtest he scored at High Average range for
Writing: Write, Revise Texts for Purpose and Audience, at Average range for Language:
Understand, Edit for Mechanics, and at High Average range for Language: Understand, Edit
for Grammar, Usage. There were no other scores or assessment results in his CA-60 file.

Current Academic Information

Mitchell participates in the general education for the majority of the day. He receives
2-10 hours of special education resource room instruction per week. He also receives 15-
25 minutes of social work consultation per month. In addition, he receives the following
supplementary aids/services: 1) break math problems down into smaller steps, 2)
alternative test area, 3) test and assignment content and questions read to student, and 4)
shorten lengthy written assignments. The general education class that Mitchell is a part of
uses MAISA core instruction. His current reading instruction consists of: whole group ELA
time, small group ELA time with computer-delivered instruction via iPads, with a pull-out
intervention group during WIN (What I Need) time. His mother also stated that she takes
him to a tutor outside of school once to twice a week to work on literacy skills.

The intern reports that Mitchell’s general interest in writing is low. He seems
interested in reading; but he wants to read his choice books and often does not read along
with the class or do what he is asked to do during reading time. She also reported that
Mitchell loves to go to the library with his class and read during independent reading time.

Mitchell currently has IEP goals relating to math, reading, writing and socio-
emotional needs. His reading goal states that Mitchell will read up to 26 correct words per
minute on fluency probes at his instructional reading level, be able to answer basic
comprehension questions with minimal support and 70-80% accuracy. He has progress
monitoring goals related to this goal. The instructional program/practice that is being
implemented to get him to this goal are oral reading fluency probes via AIMSweb. Progress
monitoring has not been collected at this point.

Mitchell’s writing goal states that he will write complete sentences containing
correct punctuation and be able to demonstrate basic paragraph writing utilizing topic
sentence and supporting details as well as the use of a graphic organizer with minimal to
moderate support and 70-80% accuracy. Progress monitoring data has not been collected
at this point.

Mitchell’s mathematics goal states that he will add multi and single digit addition
problems, solve two-digit addition/subtraction problems with regrouping and perform
multi-step word problems with 60-70% accuracy and minimal to moderate support.
Progress monitoring data has not been collected at this point.
 Steele 4

Mrs. Easton stated that Mitchell has many strengths. He uses many different and
interesting math strategies to help him solve addition and subtraction problems; he has a
lot of background knowledge about the books he chooses to read and can talk a lot about
them, and he has really good ideas when it comes to writing even though he can’t always
get them on paper. Mrs. Easton’s long-term goals for Mitchell are for him to move up 3
reading levels (a year’s growth) throughout this year with a focus on comprehension. She
also wants him to be able to write without being repeatedly prompted Mrs. Brown
described Mitchell’s strengths as follows: he has strong listening skills, he is willing to
participate in oral conversations, and he is doing a great job learning to practice his self-
control. Her long-term goals for Mitchell are to write independently without being
repeatedly reminded to work and be able to do multiplication facts independently. Mrs.
Smith believes that Mitchell’s greatest strength is his creativity, but he is also good at
communicating what he is learning. Mitchell believes one of his strengths is his art skills,
specifically drawing.

Socio-Emotional Development
In all previous IEP’s, Mitchell has had goals related to socio-emotional development.
His current goals are focusing on social aspects (e.g., learning what is more socially
appropriate and making friends). In previous IEP’s, his goals have been related to how
Mitchell handles frustrating situations and utilizing coping strategies with 1 prompt or less.
He is making progress toward these goals, but we have not collected specific data or scores
on his progress monitoring goals at this point.

There were no documents in his CA60 file regarding any previous behavior
concerns (e.g., behavior infractions, office discipline referrals, etc.). However, he has IEP
goals related to socio-emotional/behavior concerns (subarea: behavior/feelings). His
current goal states, “By March 2019, when given a frustrating situation (i.e., undesired task,
waiting for adult attention, leaving preferred task, writing, etc.) Mitchell will utilize coping
strategies (i.e., go to break area with permission, etc.) with 1 prompt or less.” So far this
year he has had 3 infractions written in his intervention log (which is a school-wide
behavior management system). All of these infractions dealt with Mitchell’s refusal to work
and do his job in the classroom.

Mrs. Smith reported that since childhood, Mitchell has had trouble with reading,
writing and math. She also reported concerns about his behaviors and socio-emotional
health. In first grade, he was on an intensive academic intervention system within the
realm of literacy at Gullie Lake Elementary in Gullie Lake Community School District. At
second grade, they determined that the interventions were not successful, and he was
referred to special education services via a child study. Mrs. Smith has reported concerns
that he was not ready to move on to third grade, but the school chose not to retain him.

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS
Mitchell Smith was informally observed during writing instruction in the general
education classroom on September 13, 2018 for 20 minutes. At the beginning of the
 Steele 5

observation, Mitchell was observed sitting in his seat as directed by Mrs. Brown and paying
attention to directions. Mrs. Brown asked the students to come to the carpet and have a
seat. Mitchell was seated very close to the carpet, and he got up out of his seat and let
others pass through to get to the carpet before taking his seat directly in front of his desk.
Another student was sitting there, and he asked this student to move in an aggressive way.
This was not a very polite interaction and was not very grade level appropriate (i.e., I have
not seen other students act in this way in the classroom). After approximately one minute
into Mrs. Brown’s instruction on the carpet, Mitchell was disengaged (e.g., looking around
the room, not maintaining eye contact with the teacher or peers and not engaged in the
lesson material). As the lesson continued, he engaged in lesson again. He was not prompted
by anyone, he did this on his own. He had six moments of verbal off-task behavior
throughout their time at the carpet by talking out of turn and interrupting the teacher. The
students were asked to turn and talk to partners, he did not listen to his peers’ ideas and
just told them his own. He apologized but then continued to talk about his ideas. Mrs.
Brown told him that he needed to be listening to his classmate’s ideas too. Then Mitchell
put his head down and stopped listened to his peers. Mitchell maintained off-task behavior
for the rest of the observation shown by putting his head down and disengaging in the class
content and/or staring into space

A structured, formal observation of Mitchell also took place during large group
cursive writing instruction on September 20, 2018 for 30 minutes. Utilizing the Behavior
Observation of Students in Schools (BOSS), Mitchell’s on-task and off-task behavior were
quantified for 15-second time intervals. His rates of on- and off-task behavior were
compared to classroom peers’ behaviors across the same time period. Categorization of
observed on- and off-task behaviors include the following: active-engaged on-task behavior
(e.g., raising hand, answering questions, completing a worksheet), passive-engaged on-task
behavior (e.g., listening to the teacher of peers, thinking about classwork), off-task motor
behavior (e.g., fidgeting, swaying, swinging head around), off-task verbal behavior (e.g., talk
to self, talking to peers when not permitted, calling-out, making noises), and off-task
passive behavior (e.g., staring-off, watching other students).

Mitchell Classroom Peers

Active Engaged Time 30% 53%
Passive Engaged Time 12% 9%
Off-task Motor 17% 9%
Off-task Verbal 2% 6%
Off-task Passive 41% 19%
% On-task 42% 63%
% Off-task 58% 38%
 Steele 6

Mitchell demonstrated passive engagement by remaining oriented to the teacher for

about 8% of the time in the classroom. This included him looking directly at Mrs. Brown or
the board, rather than looking around elsewhere, looking down, etc. He was neither
actively or passively engaged for the majority of the time intervals (about 58% of the time).
Most of Mitchell’s off-task behaviors consisted of him staring into space, staring at the wall
or down at his desk instead of doing his work, looking around the room, etc. He was not
exhibiting verbal or motor off-task behaviors as often, it was mostly passive off-task
behaviors. Mitchell was off task for 58% of the time compared to his peers who were off
task 38% of the time. Overall, Mitchell exhibited less engaged time than his peers and more
off task behaviors than his peers throughout the duration of the lesson. This off-task and
disengaged behavior may impact his academic achievement because he is less engaged
during instructional time which may cause him to fall farther behind on assignments and
instruction.

ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Norm-referenced academic achievement assessments were administered to
describe Mitchell’s current general levels of achievement compared to his peers on
September 27, 2018 and October 15, 2018.

Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Fourth Edition (WJ-IV)

The Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Fourth Edition (WJ-IV) is an
individually administered, norm-referenced academic achievement assessment and is
composed of a variety of tasks in reading, mathematics, written language, and oral
language. Mitchell was administered the core reading and writing subtests to obtain broad
(composite) reading and writing scores. Subtest and composite scores are centered on a
mean score of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Results are based on age norms,
meaning Mitchell’s performance is compared to a nationally representative sample of other
9-year-olds (age 9–0). Percentile ranks show that the student is performing at or above
that percentage of students amongst same-aged peers. The 95% Confidence Intervals are
important to note because they show that if Mitchell was tested 100 times, 95 of those
times, his standard score would fall within that confidence interval.
 Steele 7

Assessment Observations
When the examiner arrived in his class to take him out, Mitchell was confused but
excited about leaving class. He asked the examiner what they were going to be doing. The
examiner answered that they were going to be doing a set of tests about reading and
writing. He said, “Okay!” with a smile on his face. The examiner explained that he would do
a couple of the subtests, then he would get a break where he would be allowed to play with
items in their “fidget box”. He was very motivated by this and was excited to get that break.
His morale and motivation throughout the test were high. He worked much harder and
quicker than he typically does in the classroom during work time. His lowest amount of
engagement came for the writing samples and writing fluency tests and he made a
comment of: “Gosh I really don’t like writing so much” when completing the writing fluency
test.

Standard 95% Confidence Percentile Qualitative

Subject Score Interval Rank Description Reliability

Broad Reading Cluster 69 64 – 73 2 Very low .97

Letter-Word Identification 70 65 – 76 2 Low .94

Passage Comprehension 62 54 – 70 1 Very Low .89

Sentence Reading Fluency 70 61 – 79 2 Low Not Reported

Word Attack 85 76 – 84 16 Low Average .92

Broad Written Language Cluster 82 76 – 88 12 Low Average .95

Spelling 73 65 – 82 4 Low .92

Writing Samples 100 92 – 107 49 Average .90

Sentence Writing Fluency 74 61 – 87 4 Low Not Reported

Reading
The Letter-Word Identification subtest assessed Mitchell’s skill in identifying letters
and words. The reliability of this subtest for 9-year-olds is very high (.94). Mitchell scored
at the Low range for this test. During this test, Mitchell was very confident until the end
when he hit his ceiling. He made a comment at the 22nd word (two) and said, “You don’t
need to tell me, I know I’m right.” In the cases that he said a word incorrectly, he usually
said another word with the same initial sounds (e.g., said “the” for they, said “cat” for cake,
etc.). At the end of the list when he hit his ceiling, he gave up saying the words and said,
“Don’t know” to the last six words.

Mitchell performed at the Low Average range on the Word Attack subtest. This
subtest assessed Mitchell’s phonics skills (letter to sound correspondence). The reliability
 Steele 8

of this subtest for 9-year-olds is very high (.92). Mitchell knew that these were nonsense
words, however, he pronounced the nonsense words as similar real words (e.g., he said zen
instead of zent, he said perk instead of pawk).

The Passage Comprehension subtest involves identifying a missing key word in a

short passage and measures a student’s ability to connect ideas and understand syntax at
the passage level (as opposed to the sentence or word level). The reliability of this subtest
for 9-year-olds is very high (.89). Mitchell’s Passage Comprehension abilities are estimated
to be in the Very Low range. Similar to previous subtests, when passages became more
difficult he started answering with, “Don’t know”.

The Sentence Reading Fluency subtest has the student read sentences and
determine if they are true or false. This subtest was designed to measure students’
comprehension at the sentence level as well as the automaticity with which he
comprehends sentences. Fluency is an indicator of mastery of more basic skills so that
students can focus on comprehending more complex or novel text. The reliability of this
subtest for 9-year-olds is very high (.95). Mitchell’s Sentence Reading Fluency is estimated
to be in the Low range. Although Mitchell answered these questions and read the
sentences at a slow pace, he answered all of the sentences correctly.

Mitchell’s scores on the Letter Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, and

Sentence Reading Fluency were combined to obtain an estimate of his overall reading
abilities. Although subtest scores are reliable for helping to determine the root of reading
weaknesses, the composite score has the highest reliability and validity for making
important decisions about a student’s reading achievement. The reliability of the Broad
Reading composite score for 9-year-olds is ideal (.97). Mitchell’s Broad Reading skills are
currently estimated at the Very Low range for his age. The results of the reading subtests
suggest that, compared to his peers, Mitchell has severe difficulties decoding words and
this limits his comprehension at the passage level.

Writing
The Spelling subtest requires the student to write a word presented orally. The
reliability of this subtest for 9-year-olds is very high (0.92). Mitchell used his phonics skills
to spell simple words, but had a hard time using his phonics skills to spell words that were
more complex but still frequently used (e.g., was, mother, house, funny, said, place). He also
wrote many letters incorrectly (e.g., switched b and d’s, wrote s and y backwards, etc.).
Mitchell’s score was in the Low range. The results of this subtest show that Mitchell
struggled with phonologically irregular spelled words (e.g., was, mother, said).

The Writing Samples subtest has students write sentences based on a variety of
prompts. The reliability of this subtest for 9-year-olds is very high (.90). Mitchell wrote
complete sentences; however, he made many spelling mistakes and wrote many letters
incorrectly (e.g., switched b and d’s, wrote s and y backwards, etc.). After reaching number
13 on the writing sample subtest, Mitchell refused to go any farther. Mitchell’s score was in
the Average range.
 Steele 9

The Sentence Writing Fluency subtest requires the examinee to write a short
sentence quickly in response to a stimulus picture and the words provided. The reliability
of this subtest for 9-year-olds is high (.83). He wrote complete sentences that correlated to
the pictures shown but moved at a very slow pace and still made the same type of spelling
and letter writing errors that were previously stated. Mitchell’s performance on this
subtest was in the Low range.

Mitchell’s scores on the Spelling, Writing Samples, and Sentence Writing Fluency
were combined to obtain an estimate of his overall writing abilities. The reliability of the
Broad Written Language composite score in the WJ-IV for 9-year-olds is ideal (.95).
Mitchell’s broad writing skills are currently estimated in the Low Average range for his age.

The results of this achievement battery demonstrates that Mitchell is performing

below his same-aged peers in almost all reading and writing categories – he scored in the
Average range for the Writing Samples subtest, and he was found in the Low Average, Low
or Very Low range for the rest of the subtests. It is likely that Mitchell’s struggles in school
are partially due to his weaknesses in these areas shown on these subtests (i.e., spelling,
decoding, written expression). The analysis of Mitchell’s reading and spelling errors
suggests that he has some phonics skills but has not yet reached a consolidated alphabetic
stage. Further diagnostic assessment of his phonemic awareness is needed to determine
where, in the sequence of phonics instruction, Mitchell should receive instruction at this
time.

Diagnostic Reading Assessment: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing –

Second Edition
The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing – Second Edition (CTOPP-2) is
a norm-referenced assessment that measures the reading concept of phonological
processing for students ages 7 to 24 years old. The standard CTOPP-2 battery consists of
seven subtests, which assess three different, but related, facets of phonology.

Phonological Awareness
The Phonological Awareness Composite is a measure of a student’s awareness of
and access to the sound structure of oral language. On a task (Elision) requiring Mitchell to
say words with one sound removed (e.g., ‘hat’ without /h/ is ‘at’), Within the errors that
Mitchell made, he eliminated the beginning sound. For example, when given the word ‘time’
and asked to say the word without the sound /m/, he said “I’m” and omitted the /t/ sound
instead. He made many similar errors throughout this subtest. Mitchell scored in the Poor
range, for the Elision subtest, and was placed in the 5th percentile within his same-aged
peers. Percentile ranks mean that the student performed at or above the percentile rank
number out of 100 students. For example, if the percentile rank is 23, that means that the
student scored the same or better than 23 out of 100 of his same-aged peers.

On a task (Blending) requiring Mitchell to combine sounds to form words (e.g.,

combine /h/ with /at/ to make ‘hat’), he scored in the Average range. He scored at the 50th
percentile among his same-aged peers for this subtest. When he got to the end of this
 Steele 10

subtest and was given more difficult words, he began refusing to try and just responded
with “Don’t know”.

On a task (Isolation) requiring Mitchell to identify a specific sound in words (e.g.,

what is the last sound in ‘hat’?), he performed in the Very Poor range. His score was at the
1st percentile rank among his same-aged peers. For this subtest, when he hit his ceiling his
errors were all because he said the first sound in the word instead of the last sound. For
example, he was asked what the last sound in the word rat was, and he responded /r/
instead of /t/.

Mitchell’s overall Phonological Awareness composite score (standard score = 75)

was in the Poor range and was at the 5th percentile when compared to his same age peers,
which means that his performance was as good as or better than 5 out of 100, 9-year olds.

Phonological Memory
The Phonological Memory Composite is a measure of a student’s ability to code
phonological information temporarily in working/short-term memory. On a task (Memory
for Digits) related to repeating a series of numbers varying in length, Mitchell scored in the
Average range. He scored in the 37th percentile for this subtest for his same-aged peers.
When he got to the end of this subtest and was given longer number sequences, he began
refusing to try and just responded with “Don’t know” until he hit his ceiling.

On a task (Nonword Repetition) where he was asked to repeat nonwords varying in

length, Mitchell scored in the Poor range. He scored in the 5th percentile among his same-
aged peers. His errors within this subtest were related to small errors in the words. For
example, on the nonword ‘teebudieshawlt’, instead of the /d/ sound, he said a /t/ sound,
but said the rest of the sounds in the nonword correctly.

His overall Phonological Memory Composite score (standard score = 82) was in the
Below Average range and was at the 12th percentile, which means that his performance was
as good or better than 12 out of 100, 9-year olds.

Rapid Symbolic Naming

The Rapid Symbolic Naming Composite is a measure of a student’s ability to rapidly
retrieve phonological information from long-term memory. On a task (Rapid Digit Naming)
which examined how quickly Mitchell could name numbers, he scored in the Poor range. He
scored in the 2nd percentile among his same-aged peers. He completed this subtest without
making any errors.

On a task (Rapid Letter Naming) which examined how quickly he could name
letters, Mitchell scored in the Poor range. He scored in the 5th percentile among his same-
aged peers. He completed this subtest without making any errors.

Mitchell’s overall Rapid Symbolic Naming Composite score (standard score = 67)
was in the Very Poor range and was at the 1st percentile, which means that his performance
was as good as or better than 1 out of 100, 9-year olds.
 Steele 11

Other Testing Details

This test was administered at the end of the day in the special education resource
room. This is a quiet space, and the student and the administrator of the test were the only
individuals in the room at this time. There were no interruptions or distractions during the
time that Mitchell took the test. During the CTOPP-2 testing session, Mitchell was very
motivated and trying very hard. His attentiveness and engagement were more than he
typically exhibits in the general education classroom setting. He appeared to enjoy being
pulled to test one-on-one because at the end of the testing session, he asked the
administrator if he could do more tests again tomorrow. When told no, he asked about next
week or the week after. The administrator of the test stated that she assumed this meant
Mitchell wanted to continue testing with the administrator of the test. The subtests were
given in order and all in one testing session. There were no standardization broken during
this testing session.

The table below shows the results of the testing information. The standard error of
measurement (SEM) is used to estimate the confidence interval that surrounds a particular
test score. The SEM estimates the amount of error in an individual’s test score due to the
less-than-perfect reliability of the test. The SEM establishes a zone within which an
individual’s true score probably lies. The SEM for the average internal consistency for each
of the subtests is 1. The SEMs for the composite scores are 4 for Phonological Awareness, 6
for Phonological Memory, and 5 for Rapid Non-Symbolic Naming. The table below also
shows CTOPP-2’s overall reliability. This allows the test’s status relative to three types of
reliability coefficients and three sources of test error: content, time, and scorer differences.
The CTOPP-2 scores satisfy the most demanding of standards for reliability, including those
of Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), Reynolds et al. (2009), and Salvia et al. (2007). These
authors recommend that when important decisions are to be made for individuals, the
minimum standard for a reliability coefficient should be .90. For the most part, the
coefficients for the CTOPP-2 composites meet this rigorous standard. These results
strongly suggest that the test possesses little test error and that its users can have
confidence in its results.
Standard Score 95% Reliability
Composite (M=100, SD=15) Percentile Confidence
Description
Subtest Scaled Score Rank Interval
(M=10, SD=3)
Phonological Awareness 75 5 Poor 67.2 – 82.8 .90
Elision 5 5 Poor 3.0 – 6.7 .93
Blending Words 10 50 Average 8.0 – 11.96 .79
Phoneme Isolation 3 1 Very Poor 1.0 – 4. 7 .87
Phonological Memory 82 12 Below Average 70.2 – 93.8 .84
Memory for Digits 9 37 Average 7.0 - 10.7 .81
Nonword Repetition 5 5 Poor 3.0 – 6.7 .75
Rapid Symbolic Naming 67 1 Very Poor 59.2 – 74.8 .90
Rapid Digit Naming 4 2 Poor 2.0 – 5.7 .82
Rapid Letter Naming 5 5 Poor 3.0 – 6.7 .84
 Steele 12

The confidence interval for this subtest is 3.0 – 6.7. Confidence intervals are a range
of values where the confidence interval numbers represent the specific probability that the
students score will lie within its parameters.

Mitchell has a relative strength in blending words, shown by the CTOPP-2 results.
He scored in the average range and in the 50th percentile for his same-aged peers in this
area. He was able to answer most questions correctly on this subtest. This test asked
Mitchell to blend two parts of a word together into a real word. For example, the test asked
him “What word do these sounds make, cow-boy?” and the correct response was cowboy.
His job during this subtest was to put the two parts of the word together and blend into a
real word. Mitchell also has a relative strength in memory for digits shown by the CTOPP-2
results. He scored in the average range and the 37th percentile for his same-aged peers in
this area. This test asked him to listen to the order of some numbers and repeat the order
correctly.

Mitchell showed overall weaknesses in all three composite areas (phonological

awareness, phonological memory, and rapid symbolic naming). Mitchell scored in the poor
range and at the 5th percentile among his same-aged peers for the Phonological Awareness
composite score. He scored in the below average range and in the 12th percentile among his
same-aged peers for the Phonological Memory composite score. He scored in the very poor
range and in the 1st percentile among his same-aged peers for the Rapid Symbolic Naming
composite. These results are consistent with the broader reading difficulties found from
administering the WJ-IV.

CTOPP-2 Composite scores suggest that Mitchell has a deficit in phonological

awareness, phonological memory, and rapid symbolic naming. He struggles to distinguish
individual sounds in words. Students with scores like this at Mitchell’s age tend to benefit
from systematic and explicit phonological awareness and phonics instruction. The scores
for all composite scores suggest that the most basic skill area that Mitchell needs
instruction in is oral reading fluency. These results also suggest that Mitchell would benefit
from explicit instruction in phoneme isolation because his phonological awareness is
significantly low. One research-based instructional routine that Mitchell would benefit
from instruction from is working on practicing the letter sound and sound to spelling
patterns used in decodable words and constructing and deconstructing words. This
instructional routine uses letter-cards, a pocket chart, word lists, and decodable text.
During this instruction, Mitchell will learn and practice sound to spelling patterns within
construction/deconstruction of small words (e.g., putting a card with an ‘s’, another card
with an ‘ee’, and another card with a ‘d’ and constructing the word seed).

Aligning Assessment to Instruction: Intervention

Mitchell has weaknesses (determined by scoring at <20th percentile) in all of the
following categories based on the WIAT-IV: letter-word identification, spelling, passage
comprehension, word attack, sentence reading fluency, and sentence writing fluency.
Mitchell also has weaknesses (determined by scoring at <20th percentile) in all of the
following composite scores based on the CTOPP-2: phonological awareness, phonological
memory, and rapid symbolic naming. Based on this information, the first step for
 Steele 13

intervention chosen for Mitchell is to explicitly teach decodable words in isolation and in
text. Mitchell struggles with decoding and phonological awareness skills, and tends to give
up when he comes across something that is difficult instead of trying. For example, when he
comes across a word that he does not automatically know, instead of trying to sound out
the sounds of the letters he knows and try to figure it out, he just shuts down or says “I
don’t know” until someone helps him. That is why this skill was chosen for him. Mitchell
struggles with understanding the letter sounds when spelling words in his writing and
when reading. Being in a third-grade classroom, this is something that is not taught often.
The general education classroom teacher does discuss decoding strategies, but not the
specific letter sounds, and he is often confused about what sound different letters make.
During WIN time in the resource room, he is given some help with reading; however, it is
mostly time to catch up on missing assignments and supporting the material taught in the
classroom. Given this information, it can be concluded that Mitchell would benefit from
explicit instruction with the letter by constructing words and deconstructing them and
sounding the letters out throughout the process to help with his basic reading skills and
strategies.

Curriculum Based Measure (CBM) Reading

The AIMSweb© Early Literacy: oral reading fluency probes were administered to
Mitchell to further assess his skills within decodable words and to determine a measure for
further progress monitoring. Mitchell was given 1st grade level oral reading fluency probes
on three separate days. For these probes, he was instructed to just do his best with reading
until being told to stop at 1 minute. The administrator gave all three of these probes during
the same time of day – W.I.N. time at the end of the day – on three separate days. On the
first probe (ORF probe 7), Mitchell was able to read 69 words correctly per minute, making
7 errors total. On the second probe (ORF probe 5), Mitchell was able to read 65 words
correctly per minute, making 5 errors. On the third probe (ORF probe 6), Mitchell was able
to read 66 words correctly per minute, making 7 errors. His mean score from these three
probes places him between the 50th and 75th percentile for the first-grade level Spring
norms. Based on the common errors he made throughout these probes, it is evident that
Mitchell tends to use the beginning letter sounds of a word and then make a guess based on
words he is familiar with instead of reading and decoding the entire word (e.g., he said
hopped instead of hoped, he said wanted instead of waited, he said there instead of three,
etc.). Based on this baseline data, it further suggests that Mitchell would benefit from
instruction within decodable words in isolation and in text in order to strengthen his
reading and decoding skills.

Probe Probe # # of Words # of Errors Score Percentile

Type Read (WRC/Error)
Oral 7 76 7 69/7 Between
Reading 5 70 5 65/5 50th – 75th
Fluency 6 73 7 66/7 percentile
 Steele 14

AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring Graph and Results

Following administration of the baseline oral reading fluency probes, Mitchell began
the AIMSweb intervention in decoding words in isolation and in text, and was progress
monitored throughout the intervention period in the area of oral ready fluency. In these
intervention sessions, Mitchell made progress each meeting. He was excited to be working
one-on-one with a teacher and was engaged and motivated to doing the work the teacher
asked him to do. The interventionist had Mitchell practicing letter and sound and sound-to-
spelling patterns using decodable words and constructing and deconstructing words. The
interventionist used letter-cards, a pocket chard, word lists and an appropriate level
decodable text. Mitchell learned and practiced these patterns while constructing and
deconstructing small words. For example, he constructed words such as ‘seed’ by putting a
card with an ‘s’ first, then ‘ee’ vowel pattern, and then a final consonant of ‘d.’ He then put
the sounds together and said the word ‘seed.’
A different oral reading fluency probe was administered 5 times throughout the
course of 4 weeks at the end of his intervention sessions. His current progress is graphed
below. The blue line shows the amount of Correctly Read Words (CRW) in the
corresponding oral reading fluency passage. The orange line shows the amount of errors he
made in the corresponding passage. The gray line shows his goal line. In the spring of 1st
grade, the benchmark for oral reading fluency is 71 words read correctly per minute,
therefore his goal is 71 words correct per minute. The red line shows the trend line of the
intervention data shown. Intervention and progress monitoring are ongoing.

Baseline Decodable Words in Isolation and in Text

 Steele 15

SUMMARY
Mitchell is a 9-year, 0-month-old third grade student participating in general
education at Sunnyville Elementary School. He also receives special education services, and
is found eligible in a Specific Learning Disability in the realms of basic reading skills,
reading comprehension, and reading fluency (among others: mathematics/problem
solving, written expression, and math calculation). Mitchell was identified with learning
disabilities in these areas one year ago, and at that time, other potential disabilities were
ruled out (i.e., categories in exclusionary criteria: visual, hearing or motor disability,
intellectual disability, emotional disturbance and cultural or linguistic factors were all ruled
out of consideration within his disability). Mitchell has an overall struggle in reading and is
continuing to struggle meeting his goals and objectives in these areas on his IEP, and the
current evaluation is being conducted to determine where his difficulties in reading lie in
order to inform instruction.
Interviews with Mitchell’s teachers and observations of Mitchell in the classroom
confirm that he struggles to remain actively engaged during reading instruction (along with
many other areas of classroom instruction) and is frustrated with decoding words and
phonological awareness in his reading content. His strengths in other activities (i.e.,
enjoying magazine reading, using punctuation correctly, and using strategies to effectively
solve math problems) and his willingness to participate in classroom discussions help keep
him engaged, as well as individualized instruction and attention. This may be why his
morale was so much higher when being individually tested with the examiner than when
he is in the general education classroom.
Mitchell was administered the reading and writing subtests of the WJ-IV academic
achievement battery and scored in the Very Low to Average range on all of the subtests.
The results of this achievement battery demonstrates that Mitchell is performing below his
same-aged peers in almost all reading and writing categories – he scored in the Average
range for the Writing Samples subtest, and he was found in the Low Average, Low or Very
Low range for the rest of the subtests. It is likely that Mitchell’s struggles in school are
partially due to his weaknesses in these areas shown on these subtests (i.e., spelling,
decoding, written expression). The CTOPP-2 is a norm-referenced diagnostic assessment
that was administered to further explore the root of Mitchell’s reading decoding abilities
and to determine where in the sequence of phonics instruction Mitchell needs instruction
at this time. Mitchell’s performance was consistent with his learning disability in reading
with poor phonological awareness. His performance on curriculum-based measures
follows a similar pattern (difficulties with phonological awareness tasks, phonological
memory tasks, rapid symbolic naming tasks as well as significant difficulties on oral
reading fluency tasks).
His disability in basic reading skills was demonstrated by his score on the WJ-IV
Basic Reading Skills cluster, where he scored in the Low range; and on the CTOPP-2
Phonological Awareness Composite score, where he scored in the Poor range. His disability
in reading comprehension was demonstrated by his score on the Passage Comprehension
subtest, where he scored in the Very Low range. His disability in reading fluency was
demonstrated by his score on the Sentence Reading Fluency score, where he scored in the
Low range, and on the CTOPP-2 Rapid Symbolic Naming Composite, where he scored in the
Very Poor range.
 Steele 16

Mitchell’s goals are currently related toward his decoding skills and phonological
awareness on oral reading fluency tasks. The current evaluation suggests that his
difficulties with connected test are due to underlying phonics difficulties. Intensive explicit
and systematic phonological awareness instruction in conjunction with phonics instruction
will likely be needed to keep Mitchell from falling further behind his peers. For this reason,
the examiner chose to conduct interventions in decoding words in isolation and in text,
progress monitoring via AIMSweb oral reading fluency probes. The graph shows that he is
making progress within this intervention, shown by the last four data points being
consistently above the goal line. This shows that the next step with his interventions may
be to move to second grade oral reading fluency probes and continue or intensify
interventions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Evidence-based Instructional Programs
Based on the results from the progress monitoring data, the interventions seem to
be benefiting Mitchell. For this reason, I believe they should be continued, however,
because of the severity of his phonological weaknesses shown from this data along with
previous data from this report, I think the interventions should also be strengthened. I
believe Mitchell needs extended explicit instruction with a full program based on
phonological and phonics instruction. He is currently being pulled out to the resource room
for intervention services during WIN time. However, during this time, he is mostly catching
up on missing assignments instead of being explicitly taught phonics skills. I believe that
during this time, he should instead begin a program for explicit phonics instruction via his
special education teacher, Kathy Easton.
Mitchell currently does not meet the RTI criteria that the student is not making
growth. However, because the student is making growth at a significantly lower level than
he should currently be at, we are using this to show that he is still significantly behind.
Therefore, he is meeting the RTI criteria that states he has low academic skills in 1 or more
of the SLD areas based on age or grade level expectations even after being given
appropriate instruction. He also does not meet age or grade level expectations based on
dual discrepancy shown by an insufficient response to evidence-based interventions.

Classroom Modifications
It is recommended that Mitchell continues to have adjusted assignments when
necessary in the classroom. Mitchell is very good at soaking up information by listening and
participating, but he struggles to keep up with the rest of the class when it comes to written
work. There are times where Mitchell benefits from having a modified assignment (i.e.,
required to write less so he can focus on learning the class information). Mitchell also often
requires extra wait time in the classroom in order to process information and be able to
appropriately respond. In addition, Mitchell benefits from extra individualized or small
group help when working on large assignments in the general education classroom.

Testing Accommodations
Mitchell benefits from more individualized assistance, and especially when taking
tests, he needs accommodations. Mitchell benefits from being pulled out to an alternative
testing area – generally, the special education resource room. He also would benefit from
 Steele 17

being given extra time to complete tests considering he needs extra wait time to process
information. In addition, he should have the tests read aloud to him. Considering Mitchell’s
reading level is critically below his grade level, reading testing questions and material will
often be too difficult for him, and he will spend more time trying to read the questions and
understand what is being asked than trying to figure out the answer. For this reason, it
would be a more accurate understanding of what content he knows if he is read the
questions aloud.

Recommendations for Home

Mitchell currently has an IRIP (Individualized Reading Intervention Plan). A
component of this plan discusses the importance of reading at home, every single night.
Mitchell’s general education teacher (Mrs. Brown) has discussed this plan and this
component of the plan with Mitchell’s mother. The recommendation for continuing
interventions at home would be to continue to ensure Mitchell is reading every single night,
and some nights, having someone read with him, whether that be his mom or his older
sister. It would benefit Mitchell to be asked questions about his reading to help increase
comprehension, talk through his decoding strategies, and work on decoding words in his
texts. Also, it would benefit Mitchell to build in a reinforcement system for reading at home
where he is rewarded for completing reading homework for school and also reading on his
own.

Related services, and additional assessments, as necessary

In addition to these recommendations, I also recommend that Mitchell continues to
be progress monitored to assess his progress within these interventions. There are no
other related services or additional assessments that are deemed necessary at this time.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Common Core Standard: RF.1.4: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support
comprehension.
 Mitchell will read at Level G (approximately end of first grade reading level) with
95% accuracy and satisfactory comprehension by December 1, 2019.
o Mitchell will read a level G (approximately end of first grade reading level)
with 90% accuracy and satisfactory comprehension by October 1, 2019.
o Mitchell will read at a level F (approximately middle of first grade reading
level) with 95% accuracy and satisfactory comprehension by September 1,
2019.
o Mitchell will read a level F (approximately end of first grade reading level)
with 90% accuracy and satisfactory comprehension by May 1, 2019.
o Mitchell will read at a level E (approximately middle of first grade reading
level) with 95% accuracy and satisfactory comprehension by March 1, 2019.
o Mitchell will read at a level E (approximately middle of first grade reading
level) with 90% accuracy and satisfactory comprehension by January 1,
2019.
Common Core Standard: W3.4: With guidance and support from adults, produce writing in
which the development and organization are appropriate to task and purpose.
 Steele 18

 Mitchell will write a topic sentence and at least 3 supporting sentences in 3 out of 5
writings given by December 1, 2019.
o Mitchell will write a topic sentence in 3 out of 5 writings given by October 1,
2019.
o Mitchell will write at least 3 supporting sentences on one topic in 3 out of 5
writings given by May 1, 2019.
o Mitchell will write a piece with correct capitalization with 70% accuracy by
March 1, 2019.

SIGNATURE OF EXAMINER

Nicole Steele 12/6/17

Name of examiner Date

Special Education Intern

Title