Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) bridges traditional psychometric and classroom-based observational assessment paradigms to forge an innovative approach to measurement, with several advantages over traditional and other forms of classroom assessment. This article provides a framework for extending CBM in two ways. First, the authors explain how CBM may be used effectively and efficiently to fulfill the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability requirement of No Child Left Behind and how such an approach may be linked to special education accountability. Second, with the goal of tracking AYP across the elementary school grades, the authors introduce a system of CBM indicators that extends the CBM passage reading fluency task down to the beginning of kindergarten and up through the end of sixth grade. Across these two extensions to CBM, the goal is to provide a seamless approach to progress monitoring in reading across the elementary grades and across general and special education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
2.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Fernstrom, P.J. (1993). A conservative approach to special education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based measurement. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 149-178.
3.
Fuchs, D., Roberts, P.H., Fuchs, L.S. & Bowers, J. (1996). Reintegrating students with learning disabilities into the mainstream: A two-year study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11 (4), 214-229.
4.
Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1984). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449-460.
7.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 45-58.
8.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(4), 204-219.
9.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Progress monitoring with letter-sound fluency: Technical data. In E. Kame'enui et al., Reading First assessment committee report. Unpublished document available fromAuthor.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2003). The comprehensive CBM framework for monitoring progress in K through grade 6. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989a). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43-52.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989b). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103-11.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Allinder, R.M. (1989). The reliability and validity of skills analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique , 14, 203-221.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Allinder, R.M. (1991). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement on teacher planning and student achievement in spelling. School Psychology Review, 20, 49-66.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Ferguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children , 58, 436-450.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Thompson, A., Roberts, P.H., Kubec, P., et al. (1994). Technical features of a mathematics concepts and applications curriculum-based measurement system. Diagnostique , 19(4), 23-49.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.
18.
Good, R., Kaminski, R., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, D., et al. (in progress). Technical adequacy and decision utility of DIBELS (Technical Report #7). University of Oregon.
19.
Marston, D. (1987-1988). The effectiveness of special education: A time-series analysis of reading performance in regular and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 21(4), 13-26.
20.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it? In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children, (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford .
21.
McDonnell, L.M., McLaughlin, M.J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
22.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
24.
Zeno, S.M., Ivens, S.H., Millard, R.T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. New York: Touchstone, Applied Science.
