Summaries

Kindergarten CBM Case Study- Math

In this case study the teacher monitored the early numeracy progress of all the

students in her class and recognized that Marcus was performing below the required

standard for his grade level. Consequently, Marcus was a candidate for intervention;

after one instructional change at week eight, his trend line remained below the goal

line. The needed resources were identified and engaged, in this case the parent: 2

nights per week for 10 minutes each night. I believe the parent as a resource was a

great idea, but I would have included it as a supplement to the instructional

intervention given at school. Children learn by repetition so, I would increase the

parent session from 10 minutes for 2 nights to 10 minutes per night 4 nights per

week. No time was set for the second assessment, but I would set it at the 16-

week mark.

I would use flash cards that will help Marcus to match counting words with objects;

have Marcus use body parts to help improve his counting skills. Also, I would

implement 10-minutes 3 days a week for 3 weeks one- on- one sessions with the

teacher and Marcus.

Case study #2 3rd Grade CBM Case Study- Math

Unlike the teacher in case study #1 who monitored the entire class, the teacher in

case study #2 only monitored the math progress of the at risk students in her class

for the year. Additionally, in study #1 the progress of early numeracy was

monitored; there are no specifics as to the math skills being monitored in study #2.

The decision to change Hildas instructional program was made, but there were no

personnel, time or material stated to implement the instructional change. There is

no indication as to the time frame of the assessments, the required 8 weeks or

otherwise. Not sure what does not seem to pay attention when you give

instructions; is Hilda distracted by others, or talks, or plays or is Hilda careless and

does not follow through with the instructions given for the activity? With no

particular math skill being monitored and no instructional plan, I will begin with

computation. Because Hilda is not focused, I think math lab three days a week for

30 minutes per day will provide hands on engagement and the incorporated

technology will spark and hopefully sustain her focus and interest. 8 weeks after

the first instructional change if Hilda makes no significant improvement I will make a

second change in her instructional plan.

Case Study #3 8th Grade Case Study- Math

CBM screening results identified Brad as needing intervention. Not only was the

decision made but the necessary resources were identified and engaged. Brads

Instructional plan was math lab, twice a week, afterschool beginning at week 3. It

did not state how long each session should be, but I would assign an hour per

session. I will begin with computation. Because Brads instructional plan began at

week 3, according to the Tukey method, students graphs should be evaluated every

7 to 8 additional data point and points are graphed per week (CB-MPM, p.70),

therefore , at week 12 there should be a reassessment of the students graph and

a decision made to change or maintain Brads instructional plan.

Archilene@Bahamas