1

Report of Educational Assessment

Student: OMMITTED (replaced with STUDENT)
Parents: OMITTED




Address: OMITTED



Birth Date: OMITTED
Phone: OMITTED



Age: 16-7
Primary Language: English


Grade: 10.4
Referral Source: Teacher


Examiner: Taylor Sandweg

REASON FOR REFERRAL:
STUDENT is a 16-year, 7-month old student who currently qualifies for special education
services as a student with a cognitive impairment. The primary reason for the referral was
concerns with STUDENTs cognitive abilities, which fall within the mild range of
impairment, and her academic achievement in reading, mathematics, and written language.
She was observed to struggle significantly on tasks requiring language development and
verbal reasoning, working memory, auditory processing, and perceptual speed. Age-level
tasks requiring these abilities may be extremely difficult for her. STUDENT is in the special
education Center program, which is a set of classrooms that teach the core subjects, and in
which academic content and material is highly adapted. She is working towards a
Certificate of Completion.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Birth: STUDENTs previous neuropsychological evaluation report indicated that STUDENT
was the product of a full-term pregnancy and a normal delivery in Dearborn, Michigan.

Medical: STUDENTs school health record stated that her medical history is notable for
frequent ear infections and upper respiratory infections. An adenoidectomy and tube
placement was performed when she was four. Information in the file also indicated that she
has illness-induced asthma, and she only takes medication as it is needed. According to an
interview with STUDENTs mother on 10/09/14, STUDENT has been experiencing severe
stomach pain and has difficulty explaining what it feels like. The physician has not yet been
able to definitely determine a cause. STUDENT is currently taking a prescription digestion
aid. STUDENT wears corrective lenses.

Developmental: Information in STUDENTs file indicated that her early language
milestones were reached on time; however, further language development was delayed.
Her early motor milestones were also somewhat delayed, and she was evaluated and began
receiving Early Childhood Special Education services at 3 years and 10 months of age. She
was evaluated by the Division of Neurology and Development of Pediatrics at Childrens
Hospital of Michigan in 2003 and diagnosed with developmental delays. An occupational
therapy evaluation in 2004 by Speech, Language and Sensory-Motor Systems, Inc. indicated
decreased oral motor coordination and awareness, decreased attention span, decreased

visual and fine motor coordination, inefficient multisensory processing, poor behavioral
regulation, slightly decreased proximal stability and tone, and borderline praxis and motor
planning.

Educational: Information in STUDENTs file indicated that she moved from Romulus,
Michigan to Livonia, Michigan in 2013, which is when she started at her current school.
According to STUDENTs latest IEP from June 2014, she is eligible for services as a student
with a Cognitive Impairment. She was previously eligible for Speech and Language services
but was found ineligible on her most recent IEP. STUDENT is currently in a special
education Center-based program, meaning that all of her core academic classes
(mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies) are completed in the special
education setting. She is in general education classes less than 40% of the time, and her IEP
states that in her general education classes (leisure & recreation and music) she will
receive supports/modifications /accommodations as needed, as well as a modified grading
system.
Familial: STUDENT lives at home with her parents and her typically developing 14-year
old sister. Both of her parents are employed, and there is no reported family history of
learning, psychiatric, mental health, or substance abuse difficulties.

INFORMAL OBSERVATIONS:
STUDENT is a shy, polite, and hard working individual. Her height and weight both appear
to be average for someone of her age and grade. She is well groomed and has no apparent
physical anomalies. STUDENT has several friends in school and a few friends with whom
she socializes with outside of school as well. She speaks often of a good relationship with
her sister and parents. She is on the swim team at school and frequently participates in
class. Overall, she enjoys school and her time there.
STUDENT was observed in mathematics class on 11/12/14 at 1:45pm. During that time
students were working on a project involving the order of operations. During the
instructional part of the activity, STUDENT asked to move closer to the board so she could
see. She took notes and moved back to her assigned seat. During independent work started,
she asked to use the restroom due to stomach pain, which is typical behavior for her on any
given day.. Once she returned, she continued to work diligently. A few times, she was
distracted and chatted with her peers; however, these occurrences lasted less than a
minute each. When she finished her assignment a few minutes before class was over, she
cleaned up and sat at her desk, choosing not to complete fun papers that are available
once students are finished early.
STUDENT was willing to participate in the assessments given. She followed all of the given
instructions and didnt ask any questions. When she came to an unfamiliar word, she would
attempt it and then say she did not know. This did not appear to frustrate her or discourage
her, and she moved on easily.

STUDENTs mathematics skills are around that of a 2nd grader, which matches that of her
special education Center program peers. She does well with addition, subtraction, and
geometry, but struggles greatly if it has to be done mentally. Her cognitive impairment and
speech difficulties make higher-thinking mathematics, such as word problems, very tough
for her.
STUDENTs reading level is also well below grade level and also matches that of her special
education Center program peers. Her biggest challenge in both written and oral language
are using correct tenses, including past, present, and future tenses; however, meaning can
still be understood. She has neat handwriting and a strong concept of print.


ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND ANALYSIS:
The following assessment tools were administered to measure STUDENTs basic reading
and writing abilities:
Basic Reading Inventory (BRI)
The Basic Reading Inventory (BRI), an individually administered criterion-referenced test of
reading achievement, was administered in October of 2014 to assess STUDENTs ability to
recognize words in isolation and in context, as well as her reading comprehension skills.
The BRI consists of graded world lists (20 words per list) and passages from levels pre-
primer to grade twelve. The intent is to yield reading levels, reading fluency estimates,
reading comprehension estimates, and listening comprehension estimates. The criteria for
determining these levels are based on the percent of accuracy. At the independent level,
the reader should correctly read 95%-100% of the words. The student should attain 80%-
90% word recognition at to achieve the instructional level and less than 70% to achieve
the frustration level.
Grade Level
2
3
4
5
6

Sight
18
19
15
17
11

1
1
0
1
0

Word Lists
Analysis
Total (out of 20)
19
20
15
18
11

Level
Independent
Independent
Instructional/Frustration
Instruction
Frustration

Graded Passages
Grade
Miscue:
Miscue:
Miscue:
Miscue:
Total
Level
Level Substitution Insertion Omission Reversal Miscues
1
4
0
0
0
4
Independent/Instructional


2
3
4
5
6

5
6
6
9
6

0
2
0
0
1

1
0
3
1
3

4
0
0
0
0
0

6
8
9
10
10

Instructional/Frustration
Instructional/Frustration
Instructional/Frustration
Frustration
Frustration

Comprehension
Total (out of 10)

Grade Level
1
2
3
4
5
6

8.5
9
7.5
8
6
6.5

Level
Independent/Instructional
Independent
Instructional
Independent/Instructional
Frustration
Frustration

STUDENT was able to identify 95% of the words to achieve a score of independent on the
2nd grade sight word list and 100% on 3rd grade sight word lists. She scored
instructional/frustration on the 4th grade list by identifying 75% of the words. STUDENT
identified 90% of the words for an instructional on the 5th grade list and only 55% of
words for a frustration score on the 6th grade list. STUDENT mispronounced the words
prairie, broadcast, and graduate, and left out the second r in two of the cases,
suggesting a difficulty with beginning consonant blends with the letter r. She also
mispronounced other words with beginning consonant blends, such as starve and
scamper.
STUDENTs reading comprehension was determined by giving her graded reading
passages based on her word list recognition level. STUDENTs performance on the graded
narrative passages placed her at the independent/instructional level for the 1st grade
passage, at the instructional/frustration level for the 2nd 4th grade passages, and at the
frustration level for the 5th and 6th grade passages. Answering the questions with 90%-
100% accuracy places the student at the independent level for comprehension, 75%-89%
accuracy places the reader at the instructional level, and 50% or below places the reader
at the frustration level for comprehension. Out of all 600 words that she read during these
passages, she had 47 miscues, the vast majority of them being substitutions. Out of the 47
miscues, 36 of them were substitutions, where she substituted a word in a certain tense
with the STUDENTe word, but in a different tense. For example, she substituted began
with begin, was with is, wondered with wonder, and sounded with sounds.
This suggests that she struggles greatly with tenses. STUDENTanthas reading of the
passage was choppy, and intonation and tone was not natural. Just from listening, it was
hard to tell when a sentence ended and another one began. However she projected her
voice and was very clear in her reading.
STUDENTs performance on the comprehension questions placed her at the
independent/instructional level for the 1st grade passage, independent level for the 2nd

grade passage, instructional for the 3rd grade passage, independent/instructional for
the 4th grade passage, and frustration for the 5th and 6th grade passages. The criteria for
determining these levels are based on the accuracy of answering the comprehension
questions.

Academic Improvement Monitoring System web (AIMSweb):
AIMSweb is a curriculum-based measurement tool for benchmark and progress monitoring
assessments. It is based on direct, frequent probes. AIMSweb can assess students from K-12 but
is based on passages for K-8. AIMSweb is typically given at the beginning of the year, mid-year,
and end of the year. One beneficial component is progress monitoring for all students, allowing
teachers to write individual goals and monitor progress more frequently. Based on STUDENTs
instructional level derived from the BRI comprehension section, she was assessed on a 4th grade
passage that measures reading comprehension through a maze passage. Edformations Standard
Reading Maze Passages are derived from narrative fiction passages carefully written and
tested with students to ensure that the passages within each grade level are similar in
difficulty. Maze is a multiple-choice cloze task that students complete while reading
silently. The first sentence of a 150-400 word passage is left intact. Thereafter, every 7th
word is replaced with three words inside parenthesis. One of the words is the exact one
from the original passage. The two others are distracters. These distracters are not
haphazard. One of the distracters is near distracter, a word of the STUDENTe type (e.g.,
noun, verb, adverb), that does not make sense or preserve meaning. The other distracter is
a far distracter, a word not of the STUDENTe type but a word that is selected randomly
from the story that does not make sense (AIMSweb Training Workbook, p. 7). What is most
important in scoring the Maze passage is the number of words (items) that the student got correct
during the 3-minute administration time period. The score is recorded as the number correct over
the number not correct.

Student performance is described by five norm-referenced performance levels, meaning
that if the student scores in the 50th percentile, then they achieved a score that is better or
equal to 50% of STUDENTe age and grade level students who have previously taken the
assessment: Well-below average (< 10th percentile); below average (10th -24th percentile),
average (25th to 75th percentile), above average (76th to 90th percentile), and well-above
average (> 90th percentile) (AIMSweb Progress Monitoring Guide, p. 4).
STUDENT was administered four progress monitoring probes at the 4th grade level. Due to
her reading comprehension performance on the Basic Reading Inventory, her progress-
monitoring probe was administered in reading comprehension. The four probes given
were 4p30, 4p05, 4p08, and 4p21 on 11/3/14, 11/5/14, 11/11/14, and 11/12/14,
respectively. The results for those four probes were 19/9, 15/12, 19/5, and 17/10
respectively(words correct/number of errors).
STUDENT was tested along with a STUDENTe-aged peer who is also in the special
education Center program. The student was also given the STUDENTe probes on the
STUDENTe dates as STUDENT. Her scores were as follows: 27/4, 25/7, 40/1, and 28/9. The

peers responses correct were higher than STUDENTs, and her errors were lower than
STUDENTs.
STUDENTs scores on the probe compared to other 4th graders during the Fall session using
the AIMsweb National Norms Table range from average to above average for reading
comprehension. She scored at the 78th percentile on her first probe with a score of 19/9,
the 56th percentile on her second probe with a score of 15/12, the 78th percentile again on
her third probe with a score of 19/5, and the 69th percentile on her fourth probe with a
score of 17/10. In order to be at or above the 90th percentile, the responses correct must be
32; to achieve the 75th percentile, the responses correct must be 27; to achieve the 50th
percentile, the responses correct must be 20; to achieve the 25th percentile the responses
correct must be 15; and to achieve the 10th percentile the responses correct must be 11.
STUDENT scored between the 50th and 90th percentile, giving her a score of both average
and above average for reading comprehension. STUDENTs peer scored between the 50th
and 90th percentile, giving her a score of both above average and well above average for
reading comprehension.
70
Responses Correct

60
50
40
Peer

30

Sam

20
10
0
Progress
Monitoring 1

Progress
Monitoring 2

Progress
Monitoring 3

Progress
Monitoring 4

45
Responses Correct

40
35
30
25
20

Sam

15

Peer

10
5
0

Progress
Monitoring 1

Progress
Monitoring 2

Progress
Monitoring 3

Progress
Monitoring 4

Dynamic Assessment (DA):

STUDENT was given a dynamic assessment in retelling to test her potential to comprehend
text when given a series of prompts. Reading comprehension was chosen as the area of
interest due to her below grade average performance on the Basic Reading Inventory. A
dynamic assessment is an interactive approach to conducting assessments of learning,
thinking, perception, and problem solving by an active teaching process. STUDENT was
given three 4th grade leveled passages to read as a pre-test and post-test. STUDENT
instructed to read the passages and retell the details. All passages came from an informal
reading inventory and thus have been examined for readability and leveled. In the teach
portion of the dynamic assessment, STUDENT was taught reading comprehension skills
using three different grade level passages, also taken from an informal reading inventory.
The design was to use four prompts to learn comprehension strategies during the teaching
process. As the prompts increase in explicitness and level of assistance, the level of
difficulty decreases with increased prompting.
The dynamic assessment used a series of four prompts in the following order:
Prompt 1: Notes STUDENT is allowed to take notes while reading the passage.
Prompt 2: How Many Ideas STUDENT is told how many ideas are in the passage
that she needs to retell.
Prompt 3: Reminders STUDENT is given verbal cues such as remember when
and what about to prompt her memory of the passage.
Prompt 4: Open Book STUDENT is given the passage back and allowed to look
back to pick out the key ideas.

The data from the pre-test and post-test are summarized in the table below. The scores
explain STUDENTs ability to retell key ideas from a passage. For example, on the Pre-Test
for Passage 1, STUDENT was able to retell 3 out of the 6 key ideas in the passage.

Passage 1
Passage 2
Passage 3
(Expository) (Expository) (Narrative)

Combined
Total

Pre-Test

3/6

3/8

3/5

9/19

Post-Test

4/6

6/8

3/5

13/19

Looking at the results from this assessment, it appears that STUDENT is able to learn a new
strategy to help her with reading comprehension. She increased her scores from her pre-
assessment to his post-assessment by 4 ideas. The most improvement in reading
comprehension was observed with prompts 1 and 4.
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III):
STUDENT was administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) in
November 2014. The WJ-III is comprised of 22 subtests, which assess the areas of reading,
oral language, mathematics, written language, and other clusters according to the Cattell-
Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. The WJ-III is a norm-referenced test that
compares a students academic achievement to the average performance of STUDENTe-age
peers or grade-level peers. The WJ- III is based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation
of 15. When computing STUDENTs achievement scores, the data were derived from grade-
based scores.
The following subtests for reading comprehension skills were administered:
Reading Fluency: The Reading Fluency subtest measures the students ability to quickly
read simple written sentences and decide if the statement is true.. The difficulty level of the
sentences gradually increases with progression. The individual attempts to complete as
many items as possible within a 3-minute time limit. STUDENT received a standard score of
73, which is at the 4th percentile. This means STUDENT scored as well as or better than 4%
of her peers. A 68% confidence band was used to calculate that STUDENTs true score on
reading fluency was estimated to be in the range of 70-76. This means the examiner is 68%
confident that STUDENTs score would fall within this range if given the test again.
STUDENTs score on this subtest indicates her reading fluency is below average, as her
standard score falls almost two standard deviations below the mean (the average range is
85-115). On this subtest, STUDENT was accurate; however, her rate of reading was very
slow, which affected her low score.
Passage Comprehension: The Passage Comprehension subtest measures the students
ability to comprehend a given passage that they read. The initial Passage Comprehension
items involve symbolic learning, or the ability to match a rebus (pictographic
representation of a word) with an actual picture of the object. The next items are presented

in a multiple-choice format and require the student/examinee (keep consistent) to point to

the picture represented by a phrase. The remaining items require the student/examinee to
read a short passage and identify a missing key word that makes sense in the context of
that passage. The items become increasingly difficult by removing pictorial stimuli and by
increasing passage length, level of vocabulary, and complexity of syntactic and semantic
cues.. STUDENT received a standard score of 69 and a percentile of 2. This means STUDENT
scored as well as or better than 2% of her peers. A 68% confidence band was used to
calculate that STUDENTs true score on reading fluency was estimated to be in the range of
63-74. This means the examiner is 68% confident that STUDENTs score would fall within
this range if given the test again. STUDENTs score on this subtest indicates her reading
fluency is below average, as her standard score falls almost two standard deviations below
the mean.





Subtest
Test 2
Reading Fluency
Test 9
Passage Comprehension

Raw
Score

Standard
Score

68%
Confidence
Interval

41

73

70-76

26

69

63-74

Percentile

Direct Writing Assessment
The Direct Writing Assessment is a performance-based assessment used to assess progress
toward the students ability to write. STUDENTs writing skills were assessed using the
Analytic Trait scoring rubric for writing STUDENTples. The five-trait model focuses on the
following five traits:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Ideas/Content
Organization
Sentence fluency
Word Choice
Conventions

10

The five-trait writing model includes a rubric with five levels for scoring writing. The rubric
goes from high (6) to low ability (1).
A prompted writing STUDENTple was collected from STUDENTantha to be evaluated on
writing mechanics and expression. There was no time limit for her writing. The prompt
was What is your favorite movie, why is it your favorite movie, and what are your favorite
parts? STUDENTantha was told that there was no time limit. She was able to produce a
very short paper with only two sentences. Out of the 29 words on the paper, they were all
spelled correctly, however four of the words had incorrect subject-verb agreement with
regard to tense or number. From this writing assessment and prior knowledge of
STUDENTanthas abilities through observation in the classroom, the following scores were
given:
Trait
Ideas/Content
Organization
Sentence Fluency
Word Choice
Conventions

Score
1
3
3
2
3

Ideas/Content: STUDENTs paper was too short to develop ideas, as it only

contained 29 words. All of the content presented answered the prompt What is
your favorite movie, why is it your favorite movie, and what are your favorite
parts? There were no additional ideas or details offered.
Organization: An attempt is made to organize writing; however, the overall
structure is skeletal. STUDENT starts the writing with her main idea My favorite
movie is Alvin and the Chipmunk [] but has no conclusion. She does not have
enough content for it to be properly organized, but what she did write follows a
logical order.
Sentence Fluency: Writing is mechanical rather than fluid. Occasional awkward
constructions could force rereading. Her sentences follow the STUDENTe pattern
and do not vary.
Word Choice: Word choice is generally poor. Many words lack explicitness or are
used incorrectly. Some redundancy is evident. A mental image is almost impossible
to create given the vagueness of the chosen vocabulary. For example, STUDENT
states [] I love their song and dance move.
Conventions: Writing demonstrates limited control of standard writing conventions.
Errors impede readability.

Overall, STUDENT scored very low on the dynamic writing assessment. On a scale of 1 to 6
with 6 being high, STUDENT scored below 3 across areas. This indicates that STUDENTs
writing is below average when compared to her other 10th grade peers.

11

SUMMARY:
An analysis of all of STUDENTs assessment show that she is below average in reading
fluency and reading comprehension, in comparison with her 10th grade peers, with her
instructional level being around 4th grade. Both of these are areas of concern for STUDENT.
Her results are all in agreement with her cognitive impairment diagnosis. STUDENT is
currently in a center-based Special Education program, meaning she will earn a certificate
of completion, and most of her day is spent in special education classes. STUDENT has no
behavior issues that are negatively impacting her school performance, but continues to
benefit from one-on-one, intensive instruction.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Based on all of the above data, STUDENT should continue her placement in the
Special Education center program for her instruction in the core subjects:
English/language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics.
2. STUDENT may benefit from direct instruction and practice on reading
comprehension using 4th grade leveled passages. She may benefit from graphic
organizers to help with her memory of the passage.
3. STUDENT may benefit from extra time to read a passage more than once to help her
fully comprehend.
4. It is recommended that STUDENT have assessments read to her since her reading
level is well below grade level.
5. STUDENT may benefit from having access to a dictionary during reading to help
with her vocabulary knowledge, which will in turn help her comprehension.
6. STUDENT may benefit from having reading tasks chunked into shorter and more
manageable tasks. This could help STUDENT from becoming overwhelmed or
frustrated with the amount of reading presented to her.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
Dynamic Learning Maps Essential Elements for 11th and 12th Grade
EE.RL.11-12.2: Recount the main events of the text which are related to the theme or
central idea.
I. STUDENT will improve her ability to read text and comprehend what she has read
1. By the end of the 1st marking period, STUDENT will read a teacher
provided 4th grade-leveled passage and be able to retell 70% of the main
ideas
2. By the end of the 2nd marking period, STUDENT will read a teacher
provided 4th grade-leveled passage and be able to retell 80% of the main
ideas
3. By the end of the 3rd marking period, STUDENT will read a teacher
provided 4th grade-leveled passage and be able to retell 90% of the main
ideas

12

4. By the end of the school year, STUDENT will read a teacher provided 5th
grade-leveled passage and be able to retell 65% of the main ideas