Running head: EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

Educational Evaluation Report

Andrea Claire
St. Bonaventure University
Samantha McStraw
St. Bonaventure University
Desiree Lyman
St. Bonaventure University

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

Student Data
The focus student for the Educational Evaluation has been given the pseudonym CC,
throughout the project the student will be referred to by this abbreviation. CC is a 3rd grade
student who is 8 years old. CCs birthday is August of 2006 and this date will be used for all
chronological ages needed for any assessments given. CC is currently in a 3rd grade, general
education classroom. The classroom is currently being taught by a long term substitute. CC has
received no differentiated materials before this point in her education to the substitutes
knowledge. This project is meant to determine at what level CC is at so the long term substitute
can effectively differentiate the materials for the student.
CC is in a third grade general education classroom with 20 students. There are 4 students
with exceptionalities and 16 without. Two of the students are suspected as special education for
Speech or Language Impairment. Two other students are suspected as being gifted, but have not
been referred before. The students range from ages eight to ten years of age. Students who are
suspected of needing special education receive pull out services for speech and language
development. One of these students also receives push in and pull out services from resource
room/special education teacher. CC is not receiving any kind of push in or pull out service for
her suspected exceptionality.
Projected Dates of Assessments
A total of two standardized assessments will be given and two informal assessments,
along with a few quizzes. The first standardized assessment will be given the second week in
March 2015 and will be scored and interpreted the following week. The second standardized
assessment will be given the third week in March 2015 and also be scored and interpreted the

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

following week. The informal assessments will be given in the month of March 2015 during a
Charlottes Web unit. The short quizzes will also be given during the month of March 2015.
Referral Information
CC has been referred (see referral in Appendix A) for the Education Evaluation because
the long term substitute would like to have a starting point to differentiate the students work.
The student is suspected of being gifted and talented in reading and writing. CC has shown an
increase in interest in reading and writing specifically since she started 3rd grade.
CC will benefit from the Educational Evaluation process by receiving more differentiated
instruction that will ultimately challenge and engage her more intensely in the classroom. The
information will be provided to the current teacher in the classroom who has begun giving
differentiated activities to the student but needs a more in-depth look at what levels CC is at.
Background Information
Family History
Family composition. CC has one sibling and parents who lives with her. CCs brother is
5 years old in Kindergarten at the same school. Her mother is a Speech Pathologist who
works at her school. Her father is a Water Scientist.
Cultural background. CCs dominant language is English as her ancestry is of the
United States. She does not speak any other language nor has she been taught any other
language.
Family history. CCs brother is also suspected of being talented in reading. CCs mother
has expressed this to his teacher before. After speaking with her brothers teacher, she has
stated that he could be talented and is definitely one of her higher leveled reading
students.

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

Medical history. There are no medical concerns that are affecting CCs learning.
Students records show that CC is a healthy child.
Educational History
Attendance record. CC has attended Hinsdale Central School since pre-kindergarten.
CC regularly attends school and has no history of long/frequent absences.
Achievement. CC is a student who shows extensive effort put into all her educational
work. She is a very helpful student to classmates who are having troubles understanding
topics in the classroom. Her greatest strength is in the areas of reading and writing. CC
shows a well-developed knowledge of reading and writing. CCs STAR reading scores
have placed her at a 5.6 reading level which means she is reading at a fifth grade, sixth
month reading level. CCs report card reflects her academic achievements. She is scoring
above average in all academic areas, receiving high 90s. CC prefers to learn with hands
on materials. CC also prefers to learn in small group settings that she is able to apply
what she is learning at her own pace and ability.
Disciplinary record. CC has no disciplinary record. She is a well-tempered student who
is able to express her emotions in a well-mannered way.
Student Observations
CC was observed on February 11, 2015 for approximately one hour during a
reading block. CC has also been observed during school by teacher. Teacher has given feedback
on what she has observed every day since. An observation protocol was used that can be found in
Appendix B The group climate was whole group learning for about a half hour. The rest of the
time was small group learning in which the students rotated through two centers. CC is with a
group of peers in which she is performing a bit above. The groups are leveled by abilities. This

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

was done in order to meet the needs of all of the students. During whole group lessons, CC sits in
view of the SMART board. This was suggested by the teacher in order for her to stay on task.
During small group lessons, CC sits near the teacher. There are often times when friends tend to
initiate conversation with CC. This causes her to become off task. There are also times when the
conversations are initiated by CC. It has been noticed that CC often gets off task when the
assignment or lesson seems too easy for her. There have been times during this hour when CC
had been doodling to keep busy. The lesson being taught was a lesson from Grade 3 ELA
Module 2 Unit 1 Lesson 10. The students were to break up into groups and research about
Bullfrogs and use background knowledge to answer research questions. Before students were
able to do independent research they needed to learn the rules and regulations of research.
Student became off task during this time. When it came time for small group and independent
work, CC was able to stay on task the whole time. CC also finished her research fairly quickly.
CC did not need redirection to stay on task. CC finished her assignment without hesitation. CC
also suggested to the teacher that when students are finished they could begin writing their
research in paragraphs instead of bullets. This was a reflection of the kind of writing that all of
the students had been learning all year; writing a graphic organizer first, then going onto the
draft/final copy.
Overall, CC was able to stay on task during small group and independent time. It seems
CC tends to get off task when she already is aware of the material or lesson. This is when she
begins to doodle or converse with neighbors. However, this does not happen often. During the
observation of one hour, CC was off task once. A completed copy of the student observation
protocol can be found in Appendix C.

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

CC was observed on February 18, 2015 during a half writing block. CC was focused and
on task the whole time. She was able to begin her writing with a graphic organizer that was
completed at the end of this half hour time. She was able to complete this while other students
were still working. During this time, CC did not ask questions about what she needed to do or
how she should be organizing her thoughts. CC was able to take charge and show independence.
Student Interviews
CC says she school is fun and she thinks it is important to do well is school because that
is how you get your career. She thinks some of the homework that is given can be confusing and
hard at times but for the most part it is easy. She can get it done quickly with rarely any help.
Areas in which she has concerns for herself are math. She say math is her toughest subject
especially with the fractions that we are doing. She would like to go to college some day after
school but is not sure for what. She thinks that she would like to do something with animals or be
a Paleontologist. Outside of school she likes dancing and reading as hobbies. She also likes many
animals. When it comes time for tests, she says she does not have to prepare much because she
thinks about the answer before she gets frustrated. If there is a study guide she will use it once or
twice. Spelling tests she does study for because she likes to get them all right. The interview
protocol used can be seen in appendix D.
Work Sample Analysis
The work samples analyzed for CC are all writing pieces that CC was required to
complete as an assignment given by the long term substitute in the classroom. The first work
sample (a copy can be viewed in appendix E) is a writing piece that required the student to form
an opinion about a topic and report about that topic with a specific point of view. The second
writing sample (a copy can be viewed in appendix F) was a piece of a larger assignment that

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

required the student use a reading passage and write a response using the prompts provided. The
third writing pieces (a copy can be viewed in appendix G) was a part of a benchmark assessment,
but was given as an assignment. This sample required the student to answer a given prompt and
use a writer's checklist to guide writing.
The first work sample was directly tied to the third grade common core writing standard
that requires students be able to write opinion pieces on topics, supporting a point of view with
reasons. The student was graded using a rubric that outlined every piece of this standard. She
received a 4 (above average) score in every category except for word choice (in which she
received a 3). Since the student scored at a 5th grade level on the STAR assessments, it was
decided to compare her writing piece with the 5th grade common core writing standards. CC
clearly shows an opinion and organization in her writing piece that is at the 5th grade level. She
also has a strong beginning, middle, and end to her writing. All of her reasons are ordered by
paragraph and she gives multiple reasons supporting her opinion. CC provides details in her
writing that go above and beyond what's necessary for the piece to make sense. This piece
clearly shows an above grade level writing ability, at least that of a beginning 5th grade writer.
The second sample required the student to take information from a passage and write a
summary piece. This piece lacks the organization by paragraph, but when read still contains a
clear thought pattern. The details and information are clearly organized and coherent. CC
provides specific examples of information from the passage, and even cites her detail by
including a page number for one of her details. CC has a clear beginning and ending statement
which is a standard in common core writing at the 5th grade level. She also uses concrete details
to support her response.

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

The last writing sample show extreme organizational skills and clear thought processing.
In this piece the student was required to explain how to do something so that the person reading
would be able to follow the writing and complete the task. CC clearly explains her topic with a
clear beginning and ending statement. She provides descriptive details and explanations for the
topic that give the reader a clear picture.
Based on these three writing samples CC is clearly at a 5th grade writing ability, at least a
beginning 5th grade skill level. Using the common core writing standards, CC shows promise in
the standards for writing opinion, narrative, and informational texts.
Teacher Interview
CCs teacher was interviewed on February 25, 2015. During this interview, CCs teacher
was very eager to share information on CC. When the teacher was asked who CCs friends are
the teacher was able to explain that CC really enjoys all of her classmates and is happy to be
friends with everyone. She mostly hangs out with a few girls that are in the same after school
program that she participates in. CCs teacher mentioned the girls being great students that seem
to love school and want to be there much like CC. When the teacher was asked what CCs
strengths were the teacher explain that CC loves to read and write when she is challenged. The
teacher explained that she often finds CC reading a book under her desk while giving math
instruction. Some areas of improvement that were expressed by the teacher are math facts in
multiplication and division. During school CC is very positive and seems to want to be there. CC
does not miss school unless absolutely necessary. The teacher interview protocol can be found in
appendix H.
Testing Needs

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

Based on the reason for referral, CC should be tested further in both reading and writing.
She shows a consistent level of meeting the fifth grade common core standards through
analyzing her writing samples. CCs teacher also reports that she finishes assignments quickly
and thoroughly.

CCs STAR score also shows that she is at a fifth grade reading level which

indicates she needs to be tested further to see what level reading her frustration level is at.
Assessment Plan
Standardized Assessments
Woodcock reading mastery test. The Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests- Revised (Form
G) is a reliable and valid standardized assessment to test CCs reading ability and
comprehension. To measure reading ability and comprehension, the WRMT-R consists of six
sub-tests and a two-part supplementary checklist. The scope of WRMT-R includes grade levels
beginning in kindergarten to adult levels; special college/university norms are also given. The
skills that are tested in the WRMT-T measure the reading readiness (Visual-Auditory Learning,
Letter Identification, and Supplementary Checklist) and reading achievement (Word
Identification, Word Attack, Word Comprehension, and Passage Comprehension) of the
student. Since this assessment can measure reading ability and reading comprehension in people
aged 4-75, CC would be a candidate. WRMT-R relates to the reason for the Educational
Evaluation Referral because CC has displayed an increased interest in reading and writing
throughout a 4 week period and she is currently performing at a 5th grade reading level, based on
STAR reading test in the third grade.
When administering the six tests in the WRMT-R easel, the examiner would have to
begin at different sections for each tests. It is also important to keep in mind that it will take
approximately 10-30 minutes to administer each test. The Visual-Auditory Learning test (Test 1)

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

10

measures the students ability to associate unfamiliar symbols with familiar words and to
translate sequences of symbols into sentences. The starting point for this test would be to begin
on the first page (Introduction 1). For the Letter Identification test, CC would start on page 35
because she is in the third grade. For Word Identification, CC would start on page 38 because
she is in the third grade. In test four, Word Attack, which measures the students ability to apply
phonic and structural analysis skills to pronouncing words that are not recognizable words
(nonsense words), CC would have to begin on the sample items on the first page. For Word
Comprehension (Test 5) and Passage Comprehension (Test 6), CC would begin with the sample
items. The basal rule for Tests 2-6 is when the six lowest-numbered items administered are
scored as correct and the ceiling rule is when the six highest-numbered items are failed.
For reliability on the Woodcock assessment, the split-half procedure was used and
corrected for length with the Spearman Brown formula. The raw scores were obtained from odd
and even items.
Alternate/parallel forms seem to be adequate and reliable. Increased precision is
obtained when the examiner uses test record Form G and H combined. The range of coefficients
that were reported were .91-.97.
The content validity seems to be adequate because the questions are open-ended.
Open-ended questions allow the test taker to respond freely. There are no hints of the answers;
they have to come up with the solution on their own. It was ensured that the test items represent
the intended skills because in the Diagnostic Readiness Profile, it included a complex set of skills
related to learning to read. The Basic Skills Profile ensured that association skills by using the
subtests to measure decoding and encoding. The Comprehensions Profile included passage
comprehension to ensure that critical oral and reading comprehension occurred.

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

11

The concurrent validity not only resembles reading in real life situations closely, but it
lessens the opportunity for guessing, even more than what a multiple choice question might give
you It allows student to think of the response on their own with no alternate choices. They also
compared the WRMT-R scores to Woodcock-Johnson assessment and Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
scores. The range of the coefficients were from .92 to .83. This is a high, positive correlation
and it can be assumed to be a valid and reliable assessment to measure a students reading skills
and comprehension.
Peabody picture vocabulary test. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test can be
administered and scored by anyone who is familiar with the test materials and had been trained
in the procedures for administration. The person should also be trained in the methods for
interpreting raw scores and using the appropriate norm tables. The administrator should be
proficient in pronouncing all stimulus words and feel confident in pronunciation of words before
giving the test.
The Peabody test is meant to measure the receptive vocabulary of children and adults and
is a norm-referenced, untimed standardized test. The test scope is measuring the receptive and
expressive vocabulary knowledge of adults and/or children age 2 years and 6 months to
adulthood (past age 19). Specifically, the test looks at nouns, verbs, and attribute words that the
person can identify through the use of pictures.
The test set up is as follows: the student sees a page with four full colored pictures and
the administrator says a stimulus word while the student picks the best picture that fits that words
meaning. This test was chosen to be administered to CC because it will show the evaluators
CCs level of vocabulary knowledge, which relates to the vocabulary and word choice she uses

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

12

in her writing. Word choice was the one topic that CC may need some more practice with based
on her work samples.
The test typically takes 10 to 15 minutes and is given based on difficulty level, so the
starting point for the focus student is item number 73 since she is 8 years old. Training page B
will be used when introducing the examinee to the test. A basal set is established when the
student responds correctly to 11 or 12 out of 12 in a set. If more than one error is recorded for a
set then the examiner finishes the set and moves backward one set until a basal is reached. A
ceiling set is reached when the student answers 8 or more incorrectly in a set. The set is
completed and the last number in the ceiling set is the ceiling item.
The norm sample for the test is based on a representative sample of 3540 people aged 2
years 6 months through 90 years old from across the United States. In the fourth edition revision
the focus was on changing all pictures to full color and creating easier stimulus words for
increased accuracy. In the national tryout sample African American and Hispanic cultures were
over represented. Gender was typically equally distributed among the sample. In the first tryout
the south was over represented and in the second tryout the northern central was over
represented. African American, Hispanic, and whites were the majority represented in the
tryouts.
The internal consistency reliability for this test consists of two forms... Split-half and
coefficient alpha. The coefficients for the Split-half reliability range from 0.94-0.95 on both
forms. This reliability was found by splitting the form in half by using odd number and even
number questions as sets. Then the raw scores on the tests were converted to Rasch ability scores
which were then used in the Spearmen-Brown proficiency formula. This gave the reliability for
the entire form of the test even though only odd or even were used. Then to ensure the two forms

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

13

were equally reliable the scores were referenced to the standard deviation of ability scores in the
complete norm sample at that age or grade. The coefficients for the coefficient alpha reliability
range from 0.97-0.96. The same method was used as the Split-half reliability and required every
examinee to have a score on every item.
The alternate-form reliability coefficients range from 0.87-0.93. Both forms were given
to the same sample of people and half received form A first while the other half received form B
first. No more than 7 days lapsed before the sample took each form.
The test-retest reliability coefficients range from 0.92-0.96. The sample took the same
form of the test typically four weeks apart from each other. Approximately half of the sample
took form A and the other half took form B.
In every form of reliability tested, the coefficients were extremely high. This means that
the test can be used as a more reliable measure of the students levels in reading.
The content validity is measured by the stimulus words chosen from a sample of words
that could easily be represented by a color drawing. These words represent 20 content areas and
primarily come from the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2003) and various editions.
Convergent evidence of validity is provided by comparing the Peabody test to other tests
that measure vocabulary knowledge. Areas measured by this validity were expressive
vocabulary, oral language, and group reading assessment, studies with special populations,
speech impairments, language delays, language disorders, hearing impairments, reading learning
disability, mental retardation, giftedness, emotional/behavioral disorders, and AD/HD. All
coefficients for these comparisons fall between 0.70 and 0.95. None fall below 0.70 which shows
that the Peabody test proves to be one of the more effective tests for vocabulary knowledge.

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

14

Overall, the reliability and validity of the Peabody picture vocabulary test is very high
and shows that the results, if scored properly are very accurate and show the level of vocabulary
knowledge the examinee has.
Informal Assessments
In-depth informal assessment. The Informal Reading Inventory is a basic reading
inventory that tests students on their word recognition in isolation, reading
comprehension in oral reading and silent reading. For this particular reading assessment,
the grades tested are Pre-Primer to Eighth Grade. Students read words in isolation based
on their grade level and then reading passages and answer comprehension questions. This
assessment was chosen to assess CCs reading comprehension based on passages and
ability to read words in isolation. The analysis of this assessment would show her
instructional level and frustration level in reading. (Appendix I)
Brief Informal Assessments. The brief informal assessment used is a journal
(Charlottes Web Diary) of the students writing based on her reading comprehension.
She was given a section of the book Charlotte's Web and then asked to answer a few short
answer questions. This assessment tests CCs reading comprehension and writing ability
and was chosen because of its dual assessment and connection to the unit being taught. A
compilation of the short answer questions can be found in appendix J.
Selecting the Informal Assessments
The focus of the assessments being given to CC is to see what her frustration level is for
reading and what level her writing ability is. The in-depth informal assessment, the IRI, was
chosen because it tests CCs skills in reading up to eighth grade. This is 5 grade levels above her
own and is a reasonable assumption for her frustration level. The brief informal assessment is a

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

15

Charlotte's Web themed writing journal that requires CC to reflect on what she has read. The
journal consists of comprehension questions that required short answers. This will show how
CC writes when answering comprehension questions. Since the time in the placement with CC
came to an end we are unable to dig deeper into CCs frustration level skills and limitations.
Testing Sessions
For each of the test sessions, for the formal assessments, CC was in her classroom
environment after school. She was there with the teacher giving the test. Each test was given
after school so there were no disruptions to the test. Each test was given in an hour or less
format. None of the test sessions went over an hour. During the informal assessments students
were working independently during their normal reading block. After each Charlottes Web
reading the students were required to complete comprehension questions. This was done in the
classroom at a normal time for the students. The informal assessments were given during the
school day during reading block. The formal assessments were given after school.
Test Behavior & Results
Test Behavior
During the assessments, CC was very cooperative. She was enthusiastic about knowing
what her reading level actually was. She followed the directions during all of the formal
assessments and did not respond negatively. When CC was going through each of the
assessments she seemed to get very tired toward the ends of the assessments. She started to rub
her eyes and express that she was tired. Each time this was during the last subtest of the formal
assessments. For that reason there was no need to stop the tests and begin again. There are no
other factors that would result in lowering of scores for any of the tests. CC demonstrated a very
high cooperation level and followed directions like she was expected.

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

16

Test Results
Formal assessments. According to the PPVT-4, CC scored in the 97th percentile in
picture vocabulary recognition. Her standard score was 129 with a confidence interval of 121135, this is between 1.5 and 2.5 standard deviations from the mean. According to the PPVT-4
graphing profile summary CC is in the Moderately High Score to Extremely High Score range
compared to the norming sample. CC began the PPVT-4 at the age 8 set and did not reach a
ceiling until set 15 (above adult level). When looking at the item analysis for the PPVT-4, which
shows CCs total errors in recognizing nouns, verbs, and attribute words, CC showed 13 errors
out of 73 total nouns read, 2 errors out of 18 total verbs read, and 3 errors out of 17 total attribute
words read. According to the item analysis CC may have a harder time recognizing noun
vocabulary words, however the number of errors CC had before she hit a ceiling doesnt give
direct information about her limitations. All of these scores are highly reliable and valid based
on the review of the PPVT-4. The completed PPVT-4 can be found in appendix K.
The WRMT-R showed CCs standard score in visual-auditory learning to be 100, this is 0
standard deviations above or below the mean. Her percentile rank for this sub-test is 50 with a
confidence interval of 47-53. In letter identification CCs standard score is 103 which lies in the
first standard deviation above the mean. Her percentile rank for this sub-test is 59 with a
confidence interval of 50-68. For word recognition CCs standard score is 130 which is 2
standard deviations above the mean. Her percentile rank for this sub-test is 98 with a confidence
interval of 94-102. CC received a standard score of 122 on word attack which is in the second
standard deviation above the mean. Her percentile rank for this sub-test is 93 with a confidence
interval of 88-98. On word comprehension CCs standard score is 135 which falls in the 2.5
standard deviations above the mean. Her percentile rank for this sub-test is 99 with a confidence

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

17

interval of 96-102. For passage comprehension CCs standard score is 124, this lies in 2 standard
deviations above the mean. Her percentile rank for this sub-test is 95 with a confidence interval
of 91-99. Overall in the readiness cluster CC scored a 102 for a standard score which falls just
above the mean, in the basic skills cluster she received a 132 standard score which falls just
above 2 standard deviations above the mean, and in the reading comprehension cluster she
scored a standard score of 137 which also falls above the 2nd standard deviation from the mean.
In the readiness cluster CC scored in the 56th percentile with a confidence interval of 52-60, in
the basic skills cluster CC scored in the 98th percentile with a confidence interval of 95-102, and
in the reading comprehension cluster CC scored in the 99th percentile with a confidence interval
of 97-101. The total reading cluster showed a standard score of 134 which falls 2 standard
deviations above the mean. The total reading cluster showed a percentile rank for CC of 99 with
a confidence interval of 97-101. All of these scores indicate that CCs lowest skill set is in the
readiness cluster which is visual-auditory learning and letter identification. When analyzing
these sub-tests further we can conclude that the errors made in letter identification are both
cursive letters, which have not been introduced to CC yet. With further analysis of the visualauditory sub-test, CC is replacing words in the text with similar words that carry the same
meaning. The results of the WRMT-R can be seen as a reliable and valid measure of CCs
reading ability based on the test review of the WRMT-R. The completed WRMT-R form can be
found in appendix L.
Informal assessments. According to the Informal Reading Inventory, CC has an
instructional and independent level of fifth grade and a frustration level of eighth grade. The
analysis of this would explain that CC is reading at a fifth grade level independently and should
be receiving instruction at the fifth grade level in reading. CC demonstrated no errors in reading

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

18

comprehension at the fifth grade level. After this level the errors were based on inferences and
literal meanings of sixth grade to eighth grade materials. CC also demonstrated no errors in word
recognition in seventh grade word recognition. CC has strengths in word recognition in isolation
as well as oral reading and silent reading at the fifth grade level.
The second informal assessment is the Charlottes Web Diary-Comprehension questions.
Out of 61 questions, CC missed one questions. She had one error on the assessments. This error
was to question 3 in chapters 18 and 19. CC simply did not provide enough detail when
answering the questions. She was able to answer the questions correctly with limited details. The
analysis of this assessment would suggest that CC understood the material covered in the book
and is able to write about her understandings in a clear coherent way.
Evaluation Summary
Summary Statement
CC is a very polite girl. She expresses enthusiasm in the classroom which allows her to
become successful. Based on her STAR Reading scores she is reading at a fifth grade reading
level. For this reason she has been referred for recommendations of different strategies that could
be used in the classroom or even after school. CC has a very good work ethic in the classroom.
She repeatedly gets high 90s in all academic areas. CC also does very well with all classmates.
She is very friendly and respectful to everyone. My overall impression of CC is that she is
performing at a higher grade level in reading. For this reason, CC should be receiving services in
the grade level in which she is performing. Based on assessments given, CC could be receiving
fifth grade reading curriculum at an instructional level.
Instructional Levels

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

19

Reading. According to all assessments given, CC is performing at an instructional level

of fifth grade. The Informal Reading Inventory will show that CC has a frustration level of sixth
grade and above in comprehension. As far as reading words in recognition in isolation, CCs
instructional level was not obtained due to limited time with student. The WRMT-R suggests that
her instructional level is at an age equivalent of 11 years and 6 months. This suggests that CC has
an instructional and independent level of a fifth grade student in reading and writing. The results
from all three assessments show that CC is performing at a fifth grade level in reading. This
matches her STAR reading test report. Based on the Checklist(s) to Guide Description of Student
(Appendix M) CC has many strengths in comprehension strategies and reading with expression.
CC is also able to apply phonic skills when analyzing new words in isolation and while reading
passages. CC applies context clues when understanding passages above grade level.
Instructional Implications.
The main focus for CC is to start receiving services based on her instructional level of
reading and writing. Understanding CCs needs for further reading instruction above her current
grade level would benefit future teachers. This will also help teachers ability to provide CC with
performance level material based on these assessments and recommendations. Providing CC
with performance level materials will allow her to show her abilities. CC will benefit from tiered
lesson planning in small group settings. CC will also benefit from accelerated curriculum in
reading and writing so that she is able to review and still get appropriate instructional level.
Recommendations
Recommended Supports
Since all of the given assessments showed CC is at a high mastery level in all areas of
reading, except for the letter identification and visual-auditory sub-tests of the WRMT-R which

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

20

was analyzed and accounted for the errors made, CC needs advanced curriculum material in
reading. CC is currently only receiving ability grouped tiered instruction during reading centers.
This needs to continue along with other services that enrich CCs learning experiences. The
placement that CC is in was only available to the examiners for a certain amount of time, this
means that we are unable to say exact frustration and instructional levels for CC, or any
limitations she may have because the time ran out to continue testing her on a deeper level. It is
recommended that CC be tested at a 6th-8th grade reading level, a 5th grade writing level, and
then based on those results delve deeper into her limitations and test these to find her true
instructional and frustration levels. Due to a lack of funding the staff receives little training or
support staff.
Suggested Goals
During the testing process CC was informed of the level of testing given and asked what
her preferences were related to reading instruction. The following objectives have been written
for CC to achieve by the end of the third grade year:
-CC will be able to write a narrative piece that meets the NYS Common Core State Standards for
6th grade.
-CC will be able to read a 6.2 grade level text with appropriate fluency, speed, accuracy, and
comprehension based on STAR evaluations given at the end of the third grade year.
-CC will be able to read a 6.2 grade level text and write a point of view piece that meets the 6th
grade NYS Common Core Standards
CC identified reading and writing as her most influential subject areas, the ones that interested
her the most and that she showed the most progress in since third grade started. The first
objective was written to accommodate CCs growing passion for writing and was based off the

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

21

analysis of the work samples. She is currently writing at a 5th grade common core level and
increasing her level seems relatively easy for her. The second objective was written to
accommodate CCs advanced reading level. Based on the assessments given, CCs general
instructional level is 6th grade, however the examiners were unable to test CC enough to find an
exact instructional and frustration level. The final objective was was also writing based on the
interest of CC in writing while incorporating reading an information text. All of CCs objectives
are reading and writing based for a 6th grade level because this is her assumed instructional
level, beginning frustration level. These objectives will help the teacher gain a clearer
knowledge of whether CCs instructional level is at a 6th grade level or if these objectives are
two easy for her to meet then the objectives need to be more advanced.
Research-based Instructional Strategies
One strategy that would be very beneficial for CC in reading is called Collateral Reading.
This includes a student interest survey that should be given in order to understand students
interests. After acquiring students interest the teacher would then move onto Collateral Reading.
The students choose their reading materials and read at their own pace. Since CC is
demonstrating a high level of achievement in reading, she should be given the choice to choose
her reading materials based on her interest level. This reading strategy will allow CC to perform
at her reading level. This will also provide choice to students in reading. The materials for each
book would be provided and the student would then choose which book they would like to read
and at their own pace (Barbe and Norris, 1963).
A second strategy that CC would benefit from is called curriculum compacting. This
strategy to help advanced learners consists of three phases. The first phase defines the goals and
outcomes of the given unit or learning segment. The second phase identifies the students who

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

22

have already mastered the objectives defined for the unit starting. The final phase provides
acceleration and enrichment options for those students who tested out of the unit material. When
identifying students to use curriculum compacting for, teachers generally give pre-tests to these
students to show that they have mastered the material. The author also includes a curriculum
compacting form in which the first section shows the objectives for the unit, the second section
describes the pre-test instruments that can be used to show the student has meet the objectives for
the unit, and the third section shows the information used for acceleration and enrichment
opportunities for the qualified students. Curriculum compacting is not restricted to a specific
subject or grade level so it can be used across subjects and grade levels (Reis & Renzulli, 1992).
Acceleration would be a third strategy that CC would benefit from because it not only has
long-term beneficial effects, both academically and socially, but it can challenge CC so she does
not become bored or unhappy with school. Education should focus on the students ability not
his/her grade or age, which is why CC could eventually be held back if she were not to be pushed
to her full potential. It is a myth that students who are accelerated will rarely fit into society;
the reality shows that those very students tend to lead American society to greater heights.
Young people who achieve their individual dreams are often the ones who inspire us to
understand what our national dreams really are (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004, p. 13).
CC should be accelerated because it would challenge her to her full potential and not hold her
back (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004).

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

23

References
Barbe, Walter B., and Norris, Dorothy E., (1963) Reading instruction in special classes for gifted
elementary children. The Reading Teacher. 16(6), 425-428
Colangelo, Nicholas., Assouline, Susan G., and Gross, Miraca U. (2004) A nation deceived:
How schools hold back americas brightest students. The Templeton National Report on
Acceleration. 1, 1-51.
Reis, Sally M., and Renzulli, Joseph S. (1992) Using curriculum compacting to challenge the
above-average. Educational Leadership. 50(2), 51-57.

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

24

Appendix A
Educational Evaluation Referral

Appendix B

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

25

Student Observation Protocol

Student:

SBU Observer:

Date:
Time:
Place:

Reason for Referral: increased interest in writing and reading/2 grade levels above
reading level
Does the student show any of the following:

Yes

If so,
intensity?

N
o

Needs Further
Observation

1. off task/redirects?
2. Motivation to create own
assignments
3. Ability to provide self-motivation with
tasks when completed with grade level
material
4. Use of academic vocabulary
5. Uses critical thinking skills
6. Appropriate behavior during on
demand writing
7. A willingness to write
Possible External Influences:

Appendix C
Completed Student Observation Protocol

Comments

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

26

Student: CC

SBU Observer:
Samantha McStraw

Date: February 11, 2015

Time: 12:00-12:30
Place: Classroom

Reason for Referral: increased interest in writing and reading/2 grade levels above
reading level
Does the student show any of the following:

Yes

If so,
intensity?

N
o

1. off task/redirects?
2. Motivation to create own
assignments

Often
asked to
move on
to next
question

3. Ability to provide self-motivation with

tasks when completed with grade level
material

Often
asked to
read
library
book
after
done

4. Use of academic vocabulary

Frequent
ly

5. Uses critical thinking skills

Frequent
ly

6. Appropriate behavior during on

demand writing

Always

7. A willingness to write

Always

Possible External Influences:

Appendix D
Student Interview Protocol

Needs Further
Observation

Comments

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

27

How do you feel about school?

How do you feel about homework?
Do you complete your homework assignments? Why or why not?
In what subjects are you doing well? Why do you think that is?
In what subjects are struggling in? Why do you think that is?
What do you want to be when you finish school?
What are your interests outside of school?
What do you find difficult to complete in school?

9. How do you prepare for tests?

Appendix E
Work Sample 1

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

28

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

29

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

30

Appendix F
Work Sample 2

Appendix G

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

31

Work Sample 3

EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION

32

Appendix H
Teacher Interview Protocol
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

What type of friends does the student seem to have in school? Do they seem to value education?
What type of extracurricular activities is the student involved in?
What are the students strengths, weaknesses, and interests?
What type of assignments are the easiest/most difficult for the student to complete?
Describe the students attitude during school.

6. Has the student missed a large amount of school?