Pennington Publishing Blog

Reading Screening and Placement Assessments

Good teachers are interested in seeing measurable reading progress for their class or classes, as well as for individual students. Teachers don’t just want to think that they are achieving results; they want to know that they are doing so. So that brings up reading assessments for screening and placement.

Now, reading assessment has become a dirty word in some teaching circles because it’s been associated with mind-numbing paperwork, excessive amounts of class time, accountability, and even embarrassment. More often than not, teachers view top-down reading assessments as unteachable and a waste of effort and time. Teachers are, by nature, independent thinkers. If they don’t see the immediate and long term benefit of a teaching practice, resource, or assessment, they won’t keep “kicking the dead horse.” Teachers are all about “Show me the money!” when it comes to what they do with their students. This is especially true with reading screening and placement assessments.

Generally, most teachers find these universal reading screening assessments to be either a necessary evil for placement: We have to have our early and late groups for elementary school or We have to split up our students into remedial, grade level, and accelerated/honors groups for middle school. Or these common entry level reading assessments are mandated by the principal, reading coach, or Response to Intervention (RtI) coordinator for progress monitoring. Think Big Brother.

What if things were different? What if reading screening and placement assessments were designed as part of YOUR instruction. What each of the assessment items informed the teacher about what did and did not need to be taught? What if the screening assessments gave the teacher the instructional game plan for the class and for individual students? That’s what you’re hoping to find in this article, isn’t it? I won’t disappoint you.

Here’s what I’ve found that teachers want for their reading screening and placement assessments:

Eight Assessment Criteria for Reading Screening and Placement Assessments

1. Teachers want reading assessments that will screen students for reading problems and provide realistic and flexible placement options.
2. Teachers want reading assessments that won’t take much class time to administer and are not teacher-dependent for make-ups and new students.
3. Teachers want reading assessments that are easy to administer.
4. Teachers want to minimize individual assessment and maximize whole class assessment.
5. Teachers want reading assessments that are easy to grade and record results.
6. Teachers want reading assessments that others could administer (counselors, administrators, parents, para-educators) and receive the same results.
7. Teachers want reading assessments that are teachable. If an assessment indicates a general problem area, but doesn’t provide the discrete causal issue, either further assessment will be required (a waste of more precious class time) or all the teacher will be able to do is group students by general problem areas. For example, teachers want an assessment that would indicate that a student or students could not read the letter “a” schwa sound (a/bout). Teachers don’t want a reading assessment which indicates that a student has a problem with schwa sound-spellings through a random sample test item or items (Why teach all of these sound-spellings if only one is an issue?). Teachers especially don’t want a reading assessment that would indicate a vowel sounds problem or even worse, a phonics problem. If the test is not prescriptive, if the test does not indicate specific deficits, if the test is simply a random sample of reading skills, why bother? Why give a test that provides nothing to teach to?
8. Teachers want reading assessments that have a simple, one-page recording matrix for record-keeping and progress monitoring. LESS PAPERWORK AND LESS CLERICAL TIME MEANS MORE TIME FOR TEACHING. 

The Big 3 Reading Assessments FREE Downloads with MP3 Audio Files and Recording Matrices

These assessments are primarily designed to determine reading intervention needs for grades 3-adult learners; however, many teachers find many of the assessments to be applicable as instructional level assessments for K-2 learners. Only three assessments are needed for universal screening and placement: The whole class vowel sound-spellings (10:42) and consonants (12:07) phonics tests (teacher copy, student copy, audio file, and recording matrix), a whole class spelling patterns test (teacher copy, student copy, 22:38 audio file, and recording matrix), and an individual fluency assessment (teacher copy, student copy, and recording matrix). 

FAQs

1. Why do the phonics tests use nonsense words? Shouldn’t there be real words, too? Students know their sight words and so the nonsense words are better at testing the discrete sound-spelling combinations. Plus, each of these sound-spelling components, plus rimes, sight words, syllables, and phonemic awareness better serve as assessments following reading screening and placement. You don’t have to eat the whole meal when a taste (or three) will determine if you need the whole full-course dinner. By the way, all of the rest of these assessments with audio files and recording matrices are provided FREE at the end of the article.
2. Why a spelling test? Spelling (encoding) is the other side of the coin of phonics (decoding). Both involve sound-spellings derived from the alphabetic code.
3. Why two minutes on the fluency test? Some fluency tests time the whole passage. Yes, but it’s really not necessary, nor efficient to do so. Most fluency assessments are only one-minute; however, teachers know that these tests were normed under controlled experimental design. Not like your classroom, on the first few days of school when students are nervous and Bobby and Cheyenne are talking and the bell rings and… Trust me. You need two minutes to hear each child read, check accuracy, and get an informed feel for reading ability. My reading fluency assessment is expository, does not rely upon prior knowledge, and is leveled in this manner: the first paragraph is first grade reading level; the second is second grade reading level; etc. This affords the teacher much more data than those reading fluency assessments listed above. Like the other fluency assessments, the teacher gets words per minute, level of accuracy, level of prosody (the music of oral language; the expression of voice; the attention to syntax and punctuation), attention to punctuation, insertions, deletions, substitutions, decoding ability, and sight words. But with this Individual Reading Fluency Assessment, the teacher gets data about reading grade levels: independent, instructional, and frustrational. Easy to place the students in guided reading groups. Easy to help assign independent reading articles and chapter books. So efficient. And no, you don’t have to do time-consuming running records.
4. But shouldn’t we have students complete a writing sample? Very helpful to diagnose levels of cognition, knowledge of paragraph structure, use of vocabulary… but not for reading.
5. But shouldn’t we have students complete a comprehension test? Isn’t reading all about comprehension? Yes, but reading comprehension is not about a whole bunch of discrete sub-skills that can be reliably measured in any fashion so as to affect instructional decisions. As a reading specialist, I’ve given and scored all of the normed and criterion referenced reading comprehension tests. The only data derived from these time-consuming, expensive tests, is a grade level equivalent or even less useful, a generalization such as weak in inferential, strong in knowledge of figurative language, grade level in vocabulary, etc. How does that help you teach that child or class differently than if you did not give the test? Trust me. The two minute reading fluency test with the leveled paragraphs gives you much more useful data.
6. But shouldn’t we have a vocabulary assessment? No, you can’t teach to it. But shouldn’t we have a word recognition test like the San Diego Quick Assessment or the Slosson Oral Reading Inventory? No, you can’t teach to it. But shouldn’t we have baseline data? I know it looks great on paper and re-assessing later may show growth, but the phonics, spelling, and fluency assessments are baseline data and can also be re-assessed.
7. But shouldn’t we give a random sample assessment like a qualitative spelling inventory as a screening and placement assessment? Why bother giving part of the whole, which because of its design is non-comprehensive, when we can give comprehensive assessments that are teachable. Teachers like using assessment data to drive instruction.
8. But what about other reading assessments, other than the BIG 3 Reading Screening and Placement Assessments, that teachers will need for assessment-based teaching? Syllable Awareness, Syllable Rhyming, Phonemic Isolation, Phonemic Blending, Phonemic Segmenting, Alphabetic Upper and Lower Case Letter Match and Alphabetic Sequencing, Heart Words, Academic Vocabulary? Okay, I’ve added o each of these assessments, plus a diagnostic grammar, and a diagnostic mechanics assessment for good measure. Now, all you need are the instructional resources which perfectly correspond to each item on each assessment.

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary comprehension assessment, Core Assessments, diagnostic reading assessments, fluency assessment, Informal Reading Inventory, Mark Pennington, phonemic awareness assessment, phonics assessment, reading assessment, reading diagnostic, reading inventory, reading screening, Response to Intervention assessments, rimes assessment, San Diego Quick Assessment, sight words assessment, Slosson, spelling assessment, Teaching Reading Strategies, universal screening

One Size Does Not Fit All

Far too often grades 4-12 students are placed in reading intervention classes where they don’t belong. Far too often students are not placed in reading intervention programs where they do belong. In the following article I will discuss a common sense criteria for reading program placement and a few pitfalls to avoid. I will also provide three complete reading program placement assessments with audio files and recording matrices.

First of all, a caveat. No criteria for reading program placement are perfect. Students meeting reading program placement criteria will be placed in reading intervention classes only to be filtered out, once subsequent diagnostic assessments have been evaluated. Some students may miraculously master reading program placement tests who do need to be placed into reading assessment classes upon further observation by classroom teachers or specialists. We are dealing with human beings here, and although our assessments may be reliable, kids most certainly are not.

Secondly, a disclaimer. I am the publisher of Teaching Reading Strategies, a reading intervention program which I will promote at the end of the article.

Common Sense Criteria and Pitfalls to Avoid with Reading Program Placement

1. The program placement criteria must match the class. A reading intervention class with curriculum and delivery designed to teach explicit and systematic phonics, structural analysis, and fluency to increase vocabulary, improve reading comprehension, and improve spelling must have placement assessments which match what the program teaches. Using PAARC or SBAC “Standard Not Met” overall English-language arts/literacy scores to place students into reading intervention programs makes zero sense. Using a qualitative spelling inventory because “poor spellers tend to be poor readers” when spelling is not a key instructional component makes less than zero sense.
2. Use teachable tests. Assessments take time to administer and correct. If instructional time is allocated to assessment, the assessments need to provide data that teachers will be able to use. A common sense guideline should be “If you can’t teach to it, don’t test it.” For students who do qualify for reading program placement, the program placement assessments should provide comprehensive data that teachers can “teach to.” What use is a random sample test or spelling/phonics inventory that cannot be used beyond program placement? Far too often, expensive reading intervention programs use separate random sample tests for program placement and then require more instructional time for additional diagnostic tests (and correction/recording/analysis) once program placement is made. For students who do not qualify for reading program placement, the program placement assessments should still provide teachable data to help teachers differentiate instruction. For example, if a student demonstrates mastery of all phonics elements other than the l and w-controlled vowels, is at or above grade level fluency norms but fails to pause at commas, and has mastered 90% of spelling patterns, that student will not meet criteria for reading program placement; however, the regular classroom teacher will still derive teachable data from each of those three assessments.
3. (Most) All students need to be assessed. Using teacher recommendations, past grades, past program placements, and cum file reviews are notoriously unreliable program placement indicators. Teachers and schools have divergent views as to what does and does not constitute reading proficiency. If the program placement assessments provide usable data for all students, using a “first-sort” or “multi-tiered” batch of assessments (which all too often weed out students who need to be placed in reading intervention) is unnecessary. Now let’s use some common sense here. Gifted and talented students, honor course students, etc. can “take a pass”; however, having taught at elementary, middle, high school, and community college levels I have often found interesting anomalies. When in doubt, always assess.
4. Use common sense data analysis. Students are snowflakes. Each reading intervention candidate will have certain strengths and weaknesses, and as a side note: the reading intervention program can’t be a cookie-cutter, lock-step, A-Z curriculum which treats all students the same. Most reading specialists recommend 80% mastery criteria on multiple measure assessments. Using the three reading program placement assessments which I recommend (and are provided below), two of the three assessments not mastered at the 80% criteria would place a student in a Tier II instructional setting; all three of the assessments not mastered at that level would place a student in a Tier I instructional setting. As another aside, the Teaching Reading Strategies program incorporates both Tier I and II instructional delivery within the same reading intervention class.
5. Include behavioral criteria for reading program placement. Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) need to be in place alongside of Response to Intervention (RtI) to form a cohesive (MTSS) Multi-Tiered System of Supports for these students. Once reading program placements have been administered and a student meets the criteria for reading intervention placement, site level decision-making regarding proper placement is key. One or two behaviorally-challenged students can disrupt the instructional delivery and prevent success in any reading intervention class.

Three Effective Reading Program Placement Assessments (for a reading intervention class with curriculum and delivery designed to teach explicit and systematic phonics, structural analysis, and fluency to increase vocabulary, improve reading comprehension, and improve spelling)

1. Phonics Assessments (vowels: 10:42 audio file, print copy and consonants: 12:07 audio file, print copy)
2. Diagnostic Spelling Assessment (22.38 audio file, print copy)
3. Individual Fluency Assessment (2 minute individual assessment print copy).

Note that these placement tests provide assessment-based instructional data to inform the teacher’s selection of Tier 2 (small group of 5−8 students) and Tier 3 (individualized) instruction for each student. A built-in management system provides the instructional resources which allow the teacher to simultaneously supervise small group and individualized instruction. Nine additional diagnostic assessments (audio files) are administered during the first two weeks of instruction: syllable awareness, syllable rhyming, phonemic isolation, phonemic isolation, phonemic blending, phonemic segmenting, outlaw words, rimes, and sight syllables. Flexible Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction is assigned according to the assessment data. All reading diagnostic data are recorded on a one page recording matrix. All spelling patterns diagnostic data are recorded on a multi-page recording matrix. The matrix facilitates assignment of small group workshops and individualized worksheets. The matrix also serves as the progress monitoring source.Check out this whole-class, 12-minute, comprehensive phonics assessment with audio file and recording matrix. Not a random sample, but something you can teach to in order to remediate phonics deficits for your vulnerable readers.

Get the Vowel Sounds Phonics Assessment with Audio File and Matrix FREE Resource:

*****

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Uncategorized assessments, decoding, encoding, fluency, Mark Pennington, phonemic awareness, phonics, phonics assessments, phonics tests, phonological awareness, reading assessment, reading comprehension, reading fluency, reading intervention, reading intervention test, reading placement test, reading program placement, reading program selection, reading programs, reading remediation, remedial reading, Teaching Reading Strategies

My district has decided to “speed pilot” two reading intervention programs for our secondary schools: Language!® Live is the re-vamped Language!® program from Voyager Sopris with new contributing author Louisa Cook Moats; and Read 180 Next Generation is the thoroughly revised offering from mega publisher Scholastic/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt with new contributing authors Kevin Feldman and Kate Kinsella. The latter uses the Read 180 Foundational Reading Assessment. At my middle school we have one pilot teacher for each program. Training has been extensive from these two eager publishers because Elk Grove Unified is the third largest district in California and a district-wide adoption would be quite a plum for either of the two companies.

So I’ve been able to check out these two programs to compare to my own. A bold move given that my cost per class of 25 students is about $20 per student, whereas the cost per class for each of the two comparative programs is closer to that of a well-equipped Lexus. I started my comparisons with the screening and placement assessments in Read 180. Of course, as a publisher (check out my program advert to the right of the article, you would expect bias. See what you think.)

Our school has always struggled with screening and placement for our “support” classes. As a large middle school with about 1100 students, we have five “feeder” elementary schools and lots of transfer students. Program scheduling is a nightmare. We have used a variety of assessments, teacher recommendations, and decision-making tools to place students with mixed results. Since teachers have done “their own thing” in the “support” classes for years, the “curriculum” and instruction has only haphazardly matched the student needs indicated by the placement tools. Since the placement criteria has been a “moving target,” misplacement of students has been an ongoing concern. Our principal makes all transfer decisions and, fair to say, these are rare. Once students are placed in a “support” class, they remain all year. So if the district adoption of either the Read 180 or Language Live! program would mean that screening and placement assessments and exit criteria would be honored at our school, we might be moving onto the right track. Or will we? This article will focus on the Read 180 Next Generation Foundational Reading Assessment.

Read 180 Foundational Reading Assessment

As described in a companion article, READ 180 and Phonemic Awareness, the first part of the Foundational Reading Assessment (designed by Dr. Richard K. Wagner as a K-2 test and published as such for another program) consists of a short random sample 12 rhymes, initial, final, and medial sounds (3 each). I can hear kindergarten teachers cringing at the sample size and components. The take-away from my article is that the test assesses only part of what constitutes phonological or phonemic awareness and is not teachable because it is not comprehensive.

The next component of the assessment is the Letter-Word Identification Strand, which includes 10 items designed to measure students’ knowledge of uppercase and lowercase letter names and 20 items designed to measure students’ sight word knowledge. The last component, the Word Attack Strand, includes “40 total items, specifically 10 items designed to measure students’ ability to identify letter sounds and 30 nonword items designed to measure students’ decoding skills” (SRI College and Career Technical Guide).

Sight Words

“A total of 20 sight word items were developed using the 100 most frequent words from Fry’s (2000) 1000 Instant Words. The distractor items were other high-frequency sight words or common decodable words.”

Criticism

Sight words are, by definition exceptions to the rules. Random sampling presupposes that the components are representative of the whole. How can there be external validity when the sample does not match the group? It’s a bit like tasting 6 of the 31 (the same percentage) ice cream flavors at Baskin Robbins and claiming that students either like or don’t like all ice cream based upon the results. Missing 20 out of 20 sight words indicates that the student does not know those 20 sight words. It does not mean that the student does not know the remaining 80. My Teaching Reading Strategies program assesses and provides instruction to remediate all 100 of the most frequently used sight words. That makes more sense.

Why have sight words as part of a screening and placement test in the first place. Knowledge of sight words is not a reliable indicator of reading difficulties. And why 20 test items when there are only 30 phonics sound-spellings (a much more reliable indicator). The ratio is completely out of whack. Plus, as any remedial reading teacher will tell you, the easiest reading remediation is memorizing those 100 words.

Phonics

“A total of 30 nonword items were developed, representing the full range of commonly taught phonics skills. All targets and distractors were nonwords or obscure English words that are unlikely to be known. In addition, all targets and distractors follow conventions of English spelling, and care was taken to avoid Spanish words, slang, and nonwords that sounded like real words.”

Criticism

While my Teaching Reading Strategies program includes the same sound-spellings as the 30 nonword items, my program includes 52 vowel sound-spellings and 50 consonant sound-spellings in the nonword format. Phonics tests are necessary as screening and placement assessments for reading intervention, but why not test everything that needs to be taught with corresponding activities and worksheets? The tests take only 12 minutes to give and can be graded on Scantrons® or Grade Cam®. Audio files are provided with the program. Why not check out these assessments yourself?

Finally, the little known fact about the READ 180 Next Generation program is that students who fail the Foundational Reading Assessment will need to be assessed and placed in another program: SYSTEM 44 Next Generation. This program is a separate program and is extremely expensive. The publishers claim that READ 180 and SYSTEM 44 can be taught concurrently in the same classroom, but none of our pilot teachers throughout our district is doing so. Fair to note that the Language!® Live program and Teaching Reading Strategies each provide the instructional resources to teach the full range of student pre-reading and reading needs within the same program.

*****

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Reading Mark Pennington, phonics, Read 180, reading assessment, reading instruction, reading intervention, reading programs, remedial reading, RTI, Teaching Reading Strategies

Having served as a reading specialist at elementary, middle, and high school levels (and even part-time at the community college level), I have taught numerous reading and writing intervention courses and trained teachers to doing so. With the new emphasis on Response to Intervention (RtI) voices of real-world teaching experience need to begin shouting quickly and boldly to be heard. Although I commend the International Reading Association (IRA) for assigning reading assessment a prominent role in their Response to Intervention (RtI) document; however, the language of the document betrays certain pedagogical presuppositions and is, at points, flat unrealistic. For reference, the document is found at  Let’s take a look at one section of this document to see if my analyses ring true.

On page two, the IRA Commission lists these guiding principles under the subheading of “Assessment”:

“Assessments, tools, and techniques should provide useful and timely information about desired language and literacy goals. They should reflect authentic language and literacy activities as opposed to contrived texts or tasks generated specifically for assessment purposes. The quality of assessment information should not be sacrificed for the efficiency of an assessment procedure.”

Clearly, the commission has in mind the content, form, and delivery of diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments, particularly reading assessments.

Presupposition #1 Authentic Text is Better than Contrived Text for Assessment Purposes

Since when did reading assessments have to use authentic language? As a writer of numerous reading and writing assessments, contrived text is often essential to produce an effective assessment. In fact, it is nigh on to impossible to create assessments with internal validity that don’t use contrived text. Good assessments isolate variables to ensure that we really do test what we are supposed to be testing.

One example should suffice to demonstrate how unworkable and unreliable authentic language can be when used for reading assessments. At random, I opened up to the middle (pp. 679-680) of one of my favorite novels: Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. I skimmed to find the beginning of a start-to-finish passage of typical length for a one-minute fluency assessment and copied such below.  Feel free to time your reading out loud, keeping track of word attack accuracy, unknown vocabulary, and comprehension as you read.

‘Glory be to God in Heaven,

(6) Glory be to God in me…

(12) ‘That verse came from my heart once, it’s not a verse, but

(24) a tear…. I made it myself… not while I was pulling the captain’s

(37) beard, though..’

(39) ‘Why do you bring him in all of a sudden?’

(49) ‘Why do I bring him in? Foolery! All things come to an

(61) end; all things are made equal. That’s the long and short of

(73) it.’

(74) ‘You know, I keep thinking of your pistols.’

(82) ‘That’s all foolery, too! Drink, and don’t be fanciful. I love

(93) life. I’ve loved life too much, shamefully much. Enough!

(102) Let’s drink to life, dear boy, I propose the toast. Why am

(114) I pleased with myself? I’m a scoundrel, but I’m satisfied

(124) with myself. And yet I’m tortured by the thought that I’m a

(136) scoundrel, but satisfied with myself. I bless the creation. I’m

(146) ready to bless God and His creation directly, but… I must

(157) kill one noxious insect for fear it should crawl and spoil life

(169) for others…. Let us drink to life, dear brother. What can be

(181) more precious than life? Nothing! To life, and to one queen

(192) of queens!’

(194) ‘Let’s drink to life and to your queen, too, if you like.’

(206) They drank a glass each. Although Mitya was excited

(215) and expansive, yet he was melancholy, too. It was as though

(226) some heavy, overwhelming anxiety were weighing upon

(233) him.

(234) ‘Misha… here’s your Misha come! Misha, come here, my

(243) boy, drink this glass to Phoebus the golden-haired, of tomorrow

(254) morn..’

(255) ‘What are you giving it him for?’ cried Pyotr Ilyitch, irritably.

(266) ‘Yes, yes, yes, let me! I want to!’

(274) ‘E — ech!’

(275) Misha emptied the glass, bowed, and ran out.

(283)

Words Read in One Minute ____ – Miscues = ____ Net Fluency Score

How did you do? Difficult passage? Not so, according to the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores: Reading Level 1.1  Reading Ease 94.6. Average Word Length 4.0.

As illustrated above, using authentic language is far from an accurate means of assessing one’s fluency. Would you use this 1.1 grade level passage as a diagnostic assessment and follow with a Dr. Seuss 1.1 grade level passage to formatively assess progress two months later? Of course not. Most real-text reading passages of a length suitable for fluency assessments have similar variables as in the Dostoyevsky passage above: They are necessarily out of context and they include unfamiliar language, including names, idiomatic expressions, vocabulary, and culturally-based word choice.

Authentic text does not meet the standards of reliability we need to measure baseline ability or growth. The results cannot be generalized in any meaningful way. Even using the same source for subsequent fluency assessments provides no guaranteed compatibility. Most importantly, authentic language does not give the reading diagnostician the information needed to differentiate instruction. We need to isolate variables with contrived text to insure that we are using accurate reading assessments to inform our instruction. And this is true with all forms of reading assessments, including reading comprehension and phonics (mysteriously not even mentioned in the RtI document) diagnostic instruments. How could a comprehension test effectively measure how much a third-grader understands without using a controlled vocabulary? How could a phonics test measure a sixth-grader’s ability to decode without using nonsense words to isolate the variable of sight word knowledge?

Presupposition #2 Quality Assessments Must be Inefficient

On page two, the IRA Commission lists these guiding principles under the subheading of “Assessment”:

“Assessments, tools, and techniques should provide useful and timely information about desired language and literacy goals. They should reflect authentic language and literacy activities as opposed to contrived texts or tasks generated specifically for assessment purposes. The quality of assessment information should not be sacrificed for the efficiency of an assessment procedure.”

Now, the commission does not say that quality assessments must be inefficient, but by their own criteria they effectively preclude efficient assessment design, form, and delivery. See their referenced document: Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing developed jointly by the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English (2010) a a case in point.

It would seem that the IRA Commission wants to have its cake and eat it, too. The commission equates assessment quality with authentic language testing. Authentic language testing involves long in-context reading passages, whole-to-part (e.g. miscue analyses), no nonsense words, multiple measures, etc. and necessitates individual administration. Ever done a complete Individual Reading Inventory?  Pretty time-consuming—hours for an individual student. Individualized assessments require significant training to both correctly administer and accurately interpret results. Inefficient and flat unrealistic. Job protection for reading specialists, special education teachers, and reading coaches?

Although using inclusive language to encourage teachers to be responsible for diagnostic assessments and progress monitoring, the real-world application of the above RtI principles would be to maintain the status quo:

1. Reading specialists, special education teachers, and reading coaches as the “keeper of the keys” and 2. Intervention instruction based upon canned-all-students-start-on-page-one programs, rather than upon diagnostic assessments that will enable teachers to differentiate instruction.

In the real world, there is not enough time to assess students, according to the IRA principles. Teachers do not have the requisite training to assess, interpret data, and accurately inform their instructional decision-making, using the inefficient authentic language assessments. In fact, many of the teachers assigned to reading intervention classes are not the most experienced teachers.

My suggestions? Let’s leave our presuppositions behind and live in the real world. Let’s get off our high horses and train teachers to use simple whole-class, multiple-choice diagnostic reading assessments, so that they can effectively differentiate reading instruction for their intervention students. Sacrifice authentic language? Have a negligible impact on accuracy (debatable) by assessing whole-class? Oh, well… well worth the sacrifices, if teachers will be able to use assessments to inform and differentiate instruction for their intervention students.

Here are some free diagnostic assessments, created by a team of reading specialists, that are user-friendly, simple to score and analyze, and designed to enable teachers of all levels of expertise to differentiate reading instruction: assessments Now, that’s RtI that does work.

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE for detailed product description and sample lessons.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills authentic language, diagnostic assessment, individual reading inventories, Mark Pennington, phonics, race to the top, reading assessment, reading comprehension, reading intervention, reading intervention programs, remedial reading, response to intervention

Placing students in remedial reading intervention classes is certainly a challenge. By understanding what does and does not make sense in the selection process, educators will be able to avoid many of the usual pitfalls of these types of programs and have a greater chance at success.

What Does Not Make Sense in Terms of Reading Intervention Placement

1. Placing students in reading intervention classes from the results of standards-based assessments and herding them into a reading intervention class is crazy. Students score poorly on standards-based tests for all kinds of reasons. The student data from the PAARC and SBAC Standards-based assessments measure student achievement relative to grade-level standards; they are not designed to measure reading-vocabulary abilities, as are normed tests. Additionally, placement based upon the previous annual exam ignores the reading history of the students. Finally, in my experience, this placement mixes students who really only require strategic reading intervention with students who need intensive reading intervention. Usually, more students wind up in intensive reading intervention classes than what is warranted.

2. Placing students into a reading intervention class without regard to behavioral criteria is crazy. Severe ADHD students, students with anger issues, and students who bug the heck out of other students or teachers all need special intervention and may, indeed, need remedial reading instruction. In fact, many of the students who have behavioral problems have learned these behaviors to cope with reading problems. However, just a few of these students can ruin an entire class. We have to take our heads out of the sand on the behavioral issue. Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) need to be in place alongside of Response to Intervention (RtI) to form a cohesive (MTSS) Multi-Tiered System of Supports for these students.

3. Placing students into a class of 35 students for reading intervention is crazy. Any remedial reading class has students in that class for many different reasons, even if the placement criteria make sense. Some students have vocabulary deficits; others have decoding issues; others have fluency problems, etc. It’s a given that a remedial reading teacher must differentiate instruction. In order to differentiate instruction, the teacher-student ratio has to be manageable and the class size has to be limited.

4. Placing students in intensive Tier 3 classes for 30 minutes a day, for one semester i.e., 18 weeks, is crazy. A survival skills, band-aid approach to remedial reading may even be counterproductive. True remedial reading intervention takes time.

5. Placing students in a reading intervention class taught by a new teacher or an English-language Arts teacher, without extensive support and training, is crazy. Most credential programs only require one or two reading classes. Most new teachers are ill-prepared to teach intensive remedial reading classes. Using reading intervention classes as the dumping ground for new teachers will guarantee failure.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
What Does Make Sense in Terms of Reading Intervention Placement

1. Standards-based assessments, such as the PAARC or SBAC, can be a rough, initial screening to alert educators about potential reading problems for individual students. However, a second round of diagnosis is definitely called for before placing student into an intensive reading intervention program. Selecting diagnostic assessments that are outside of the primary remedial reading program is of critical importance. There is the inherent problem of a publisher’s conflict of interest i.e., let’s keep as many students in this program as possible in order to sell more books. These multiple choice reading assessments will efficiently and appropriately narrow down the list of students who really need a remedial reading class after an initial screening has been made.

2. Establish clear selection guidelines that deal with the behavioral issues. Behavioral problem students need help, too, but not in a class size of 35 students, and not at the expense of other students and their teachers. Smaller class sizes with specially trained teachers that deal head-on with the behavioral issues, as well as the reading issues, are essential to the success of behaviorally-challenged remedial reading students.

3. Reasonable class sizes are keys to remedial reading intervention success. Explore structural considerations, such as early-late, team-teaching, and after-school options to achieve sensible teacher-student ratios. Explore using teachers, who volunteer part of their teacher prep with additional stipend or in lieu of teacher duties (trade-offs) to help out. Explore incorporating instructional aides, parents, and student tutors to help manage larger class sizes and to assist with differentiated instruction.

4. Providing enough time for students to gain the reading skills needed to be successful in school is essential. I suggest a minimum of one hour daily for a half-year or full-year program to make a difference in student achievement.

5. Remedial reading intervention cannot be the dumping ground for teachers who lack seniority. Nor can a reading intervention class be a training ground for teachers. Remedial reading students deserve the best. Teachers without reading expertise need to gain that expertise prior to teaching this unique student population. University coursework and professional development are keys to creating the expertise needed to teach remedial reading intervention classes.

*****

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE for detailed product description and sample lessons.

Reading intensive reading, Language!, Mark Pennington, reading assessment, reading intervention, reading intervention test, reading placement, reading placement test, reading program placement, reading programs, remedial reading, strategic reading, Teaching Reading Strategies