Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified in your manual or published materials?
Yes
Specify the growth standards:
Our growth standards are derived from a sample of 2007 students enrolled in grades 1 to 6 who were progress monitored on a weekly basis during the school year. The sample included 228 students in grade 1; 418 students in grade 2; 493 students in grades 3; 353 students in grade 4; 332 students in grade 5; and 183 students in grade 6. The average number of progress monitoring passages administered to these students was 16.5 (SD=6.3).
To specify "rates of improvement" for Words Read Correctly we calculated the slope for each student. We then developed percentiles for Words Read Correctly for each grade level. In the table below we provide the 25th, 50, and 75th percentiles at each grade, 1 through 6 (see table below). Slopes associated with the 75^{th} percentile are 1.6 at grade 1; 1.6 at grade 2; 1.4 at grade 3; 1.2 at grade 4; 1.4 at grade 5; and 1.3 at grade 6.
Grade

Percentile

Slope

Grade 1
N=228

25^{th}

0.109


50^{th}

0.647


75^{th}

1.607

Grade 2
N=415

25^{th}

0.616


50^{th}

1.025


75^{th}

1.570

Grade 3
N=493

25^{th}

0.565


50^{th}

0.948


75^{th}

1.445

Grade 4
N=353

25^{th}

0.336


50^{th}

0.800


75^{th}

1.194

Grade 5
N=332

25^{th}

0.260


50^{th}

0.833


75^{th}

1.437

Grade 6
N=183

25^{th}

0.218


50^{th}

0.688


75^{th}

1.310

What is the basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth?
NormReferenced
Basis for specifying minimum acceptable growth:
The Progress Monitoring system is structured so that teachers can choose from among 3 different growth rates at each grade level to set appropriate goals for their students. Those growth rates (termed “Modest,” “Reasonable”, and “Ambitious”) allow the teachers to choose growth rates for individual students that are consistent with their screening levels of performance and with the teacher’s knowledge of the student. The choice of growth rate then becomes a multiplier for individual goal setting and for setting up a progress graph that becomes a realistic basis for subsequent instructional decision making and program modifications. Once the student’s progress graph has been created, feedback on the degree of acceptability of student progress is provided by displaying the student’s scores in 3 colorcoded ranges of risk exceeding desired growth, at desired growth, below desired growth. Developers used growth rates derived from a range of empirical research articles as a basis for establishing the desired growth rates for each grade level including the following:
Deno, S. L. & Marston, D. E. (2006) Curriculumbased Measurement of oral reading growth: An approach to measuring “fluency?” In Jay Samuels & Alan Dershwitz (Eds) Fluency International Reading Association: Newark, DE.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D.B & Shin, J., (2001). Using curriculumbased measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psycholgy Review,30(4), 507524.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 2748.
Marston, D. & Magnusson, D. (1988) Curriculumbased measurement: District level implementation. In J. Graden, J. Zins, & M. Curtis (Eds.) Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. (pp 137172)Washington, D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists.
Representation: Local
Date: 201415 school year
Number of States: One state: Minnesota
Size: 2007 students
Gender: 53.1% Male; 46.9% Female
SES Indicators: 72.2 % of sample receives free or reduced lunch (FRL)
Race/Ethnicity: 40.1% White, NonHispanic; 29.7% Black, NonHispanic; 5.3% American Indian/Alaska Native; 9.9% Asian/Pacific Islander; 14.4% Hispanic
Disability classification: 18.8% students with disabilities