Newton Public Schools
Elementary
Newtonville, MA 024
Student Name: XX XXX
Teacher Name:
Grade: Third
Date of Birth:
Date of Evaluation:
Age: 9 years, 2 months
Parent(s)/Guardian(s): XXX
Phone: (617)
Type of Assessment: Educational
Evaluator:
Point in Cycle: Re-evaluation
Title: Learning Center Teacher
Reason for Referral
XX has attended the Horace Mann Elementary School since Kindergarten. Through
regular education, she received Early Intervention services, but her progress was slow.
She had some trouble making the transition to school and often came to school
reluctantly. At the end of first grade, she was found eligible for special education services
with an eligibility of Developmental Delay since it was unclear as to the nature of her
difficulties. XX has received services for reading and math, and for speech/language
skills. At the end of second grade, XX’s parents arranged for a private tutor who has been
able to build XX’s self-confidence and motivation for schoolwork. XX now comes to
school happily and puts forth excellent effort throughout her school day. Since XX just
turned nine, this evaluation is needed to determine another eligibility category as she
moves through the grades. This new information will be important in planning
programming for the coming year.
Assessment Instruments
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-II)
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP)
Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT
Directed Reading Inventory
Behavioral Observations:
XX came willingly for each of the test sessions since she is familiar with this examiner
and the learning center environment. XX put forth good effort throughout her testing,
XXX, XX – Confidential
2
although occasionally she needed to be encouraged to make a guess. On several
occasions this additional effort proved to be positive, and at times, XX seemed surprised
that she was able to decode some words. She also repeatedly asked “Is that good?” or “Is
that OK?” in referring to her answers. She frequently sought confirmation that her
performance was appropriate. She also apologized for not knowing an answer. When
confronted with the task of retelling a story in writing, she said, “This is hard.” “Do I
have to finish today?” “Can we do something else instead?” The following comment is
based not only on observations during testing, but also based on observations during
regular lessons: XX constantly tries to make meaning while reading, and although she is
sometimes inefficient, she uses logic and real-world experience as effective strategies to
overcome her learning challenges.
Assessment Descriptions and Evaluation Results:
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II)
Is an individually administered measure of academic achievement for ages 4 ½ through 25. The
Comprehensive Form is a curriculum-based instrument that is norm-referenced and, through its error
analysis systems, criterion-referenced assessment in the domains of reading, mathematics, written
language, and oral language. All seven specific learning disability areas identified in t IDEA, 1997) are
measured: basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, mathematics reasoning,
oral expression, listening comprehension, and written expression. Subtests were developed to have similar
formats to enable useful comparisons to be made between each pair of subtests. These comparisons help the
examiner distinguish specific problems in reading or writing form more general language problems. The
KTEA-II was normed using two separate representative, nationwide standardizations, one in the fall and
one in the spring. This procedure was implemented to accurately measure students’ performance both at the
beginning and end of the year.
Letter & Word Recognition
Reading Comprehension
Math Concepts and Applications
Math Computation
Written Expression
Spelling
Listening Comprehension
Oral Expression
Reading Related Subtests
Phonological Awareness
Nonsense Word Decoding
Word Recognition Fluency
Decoding Fluency
Associational Fluency
Naming Facility
Standard Score
%ile
Composites
78 (73-83)
87 (82-92)
94 (87-101)
79 (72-86)
91 (81-101)
81 (76-86)
102 (93-111)
95 (84-106)
7%
19%
34%
8%
27%
10%
55%
37%
94 (86-102)
98 (92-104)
68 (60-76)
86 (81-93)
95 (82-108)
91 (83-99)
34%
45%
2%
18%
37%
27%
Standard Score
%ile
Reading
80 (76-84)
9%
Math
84 (78-90)
14%
Written Language
85 (79-81)
16%
98 (89-107)
45%
85 (81-89)
16%
95 (89-101)
77 (71-83)
87 (83-91)
91 (81-101)
37%
6%
19%
27%
Oral Language
Composite:
Sound Symbol
Reading Fluency
Decoding
Oral Fluency
The results indicate that XX has earned an overall composite score that is just within the
average range. Both the reading and math composite scores fall in the below average
range, and the written language composite is commensurate with reading and math. It
should be noted that XX does much better when reading, writing, and math tasks are
embedded in meaningful content. Oral language skills are well within the average range,
and there is a statistically significant difference between this stronger performance in oral
XXX, XX – Confidential
3
language and her academic composites. When looking at specific subtests, there is a
statistically significant difference (<.01) between her Word Recognition Fluency and
Decoding Fluency score that occurs in less than 10 percent of children her age.
In the Reading subtests, XX displayed difficulty reading isolated words, but did better
when she had the context of a story to help her decode the words. She earned a score in
the below average range in word recognition, but reading comprehension falls in the low
end of the average range. This is a somewhat statistically significant difference. The most
striking difference is in her score for the Word Recognition Fluency subtest. When
confronted with a timed test such as the Word Recognition Fluency subtest, XX’s lack of
efficient, automatic word recognition skills contrasts starkly with her better performance
when she is provided with context. She displayed average skill in untimed decoding of
nonsense words, but her response style for decoding real and nonsense words was slow
and deliberate, with multiple attempts on more difficult items. Although she scored in the
average range in Phonological Awareness, she responded very slowly to the rhyming task
and sound deletion task. Other reading related subtests indicate normally developed
abilities, such as Associational Fluency and Naming Ability. Listening Comprehension is
somewhat stronger than Reading Comprehension, but the discrepancy is not statistically
significant. More specifically, in Letter and Word Recognition, she was able to decode
words such as stove, shoes, high, and ocean. Among her errors were behind (bend), point
(pont), watch (wach), eleven (ever), and guess (jes). In the two nonsense word decoding
subtests, she showed relative mastery of short vowels, consonant blends and vowelconsonant-e syllables. XX had difficulty decoding words with vowel digraphs, but she
did use the sounds for ow and ou. Additional subtests uncovered difficulties with the
multiple sounds of oo. Please note additional assessments of phonological skills on the
CTOPP below.
In math skills, XX’s composite score falls in the below average range due to her
difficulties with computation. XX demonstrated good problem-solving and logical
thinking in the Math Concepts and Applications subtest, which is in the average range. In
computation, she solved problems involving two-digit addition and subtraction, but she
made errors when regrouping three digits. XX relies on counting on her fingers since she
is having difficulty mastering facts such as the “doubles” and combinations that make
ten. She had difficulty recalling or figuring out problems for single-digit multiplication.
In the applications subtest, XX could read and sort 2- and 3-digit numbers, read a
calendar, select the correct vocabulary for weight and time, and count change using her
fingers. She demonstrated understanding of “half”. She was also able to solve word
problems by drawing pictures to represent the problem. Some questions needed to be
repeated to clarify her understanding of the task. Fraction tasks were not administered
because she had reached the maximum number of errors.
XX scores just within the average range in written language but spelling is an area of
weakness. Her score is evidence that she can express herself in writing, but she has
difficulty with spelling and mechanics such as using punctuation and capitalization. She
understood most tasks and displayed good sentence structure and grammar. On the other
hand, XX finds writing a paragraph to be effortful and challenging. This may be due to
XXX, XX – Confidential
4
her tendency to add a great deal of detail to each part of the story. In the ten minute time
limit, XX was able to write four sentences that described the beginning of the story. If
this were a writing assignment spread over time, XX could have generated an accurate
retelling of the story with good detail. XX used some effective strategies such as looking
back in a story to copy words she was using in her sentences. In general, XX forms letters
correctly and has adequate proportion and spacing to make her writing legible. XX’s
writing sample is as follows:
a Dragin came
to the vilich (village)howe (no)
one eyen (even) now (knew) way (why)
he came So thay
wonted to send some
one to get the dragin
some how So they
thot(thought) that Kyra
cloud (could) do it because
she nowe (knew) a lot
of pepowl (people).
On this sample, she earned points for using an average number of words, having a logical
flow, and using one complex sentence structure. Spelling is not scored for this sample.
Her pattern of errors in written expression displayed the same difficulties applying rules
for punctuation and capitalization.
Aside from writing mechanics, spelling is the other area that XX finds challenging with a
score in the below average range. In the spelling subtest, she demonstrated mastery of
words such as bath, open, very, and went. She wrote saed for said, Dont for don’t, diy for
dry, and fone for phone.
XX displayed well-developed ability in Oral Language with a composite score in the
average range. In the Listening Comprehension subtest, XX earned her highest score
which falls well within the average range. She was able to easily recall information and
make inferences after listening to short paragraphs of story structures and had an equal
number of errors for literal and inferential questions. XX did have difficulty holding
multiple choice answers in short term memory and choosing correct answers. The
multiple choice answers had to be repeated several times. Oral expression skills scored in
the average range. XX understood tasks, generally used correct word forms (she used
holded for held), and word meanings. Her responses were somewhat inefficient. She
needed to say two or more sentences for a task to complete her thoughts. She had some
mild difficulties with sentence structure, as in formulating complex sentences. These
results are evidence that XX has average learning potential based on her oral language
skills, and there is a statistically significant difference between her verbal learning skills
and academic skills, especially in word recognition and decoding and to a lesser extent,
spelling.
XXX, XX – Confidential
5
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing is an individually administered,
comprehensive test designed to diagnose deficits in phonological processing and sound to
spelling correspondence. It also measures a student’s ability to rapidly name letters,
digits, colors and objects. The ability to perform rapid naming tasks is related to oral
fluency and is highly correlated to reading speed and fluency. It is also related other oral
expression tasks, what clinicians sometimes refer to as “word-finding”. Some wellaccepted theories of beginning reading achievement postulate that fluency is very
dependent upon phonological awareness, and is also dependent on ease of word-finding.
Following are descriptions of specific subtests of the CTOPP:
Elision: this 20-item subtest requires a student to say a word, then say what is left after dropping out designated sounds.
For the first two items, the examiner says compound words and asks the student to say that word, then say the word that
remains after dropping one of the compound words. For the remaining items, the individual listens to a word and
repeats that word, and then is asked to say the word without a specific sound. For example, the student is instructed to
“Say bold.” After repeating “bold,” the student is told, “Now say bold without saying /b/” The correct answer is “old”.
Blending Words: this 20-item subtest measures an individual’s ability to combine sounds to form words. The child
listens to a series of audiocassette-recorded separate sounds and then is asked to put the separate sounds together to
make a whole word. For example, the student is asked, “What word do these sounds make: t-oi?” The correct answer is
“toy”.
Memory for Digits: this 21-item subtest requires a child to repeat a series of numbers ranging in length from two to
eight digits. After listening to a series of audiocassette-recorded numbers, presented at a rate of 2 per second, she or
she is asked to repeat the numbers in the same order in which they were she ard.
Rapid Digit Naming: this 72-item subtest measures the speed with which an individual can name the numbers on two
pages, each containing four rows and nine columns of six randomly arranged numbers (i.e., 2, 3, 4 5, 7, 8). The student
is instructed to start naming the numbers on the top row, from left to right, move to the next row, name the numbers left
to right, and so on, until all of the numbers have been named. The individual’s score is the total number of seconds
taken to name all of the numbers on both pages.
Nonword Repetition: this 18-item subtest measures an individual’s ability to repeat nonwords that range in length
from 3 to 15 sounds. The student is told to listen to an audiocassette-recorded made-up word and repeat it exactly. For
example, the student hears the tape-recorded sounds “nigong,” to which the correct response is “nigong.”
Rapid Letter Naming: this 72-item subtest measures the speed with which an individual can name the letters on two
pages, each containing four rows and nine columns of six randomly arranged letters (i.e., a, c, k, n, s, t). The student is
instructed to start naming the letters on the top row, from left to right, move to the next row, name the letters left to
right and so on, until all of the letters have been named. The individual’s score is the total number of seconds taken to
name all of the letters on both pages.
Composites
The composite scores identify the major phonological processes of Phonological
Awareness, Phonological Memory, and Rapid Naming. The CTOPP subtests were
combined in such a way as to form these composites.
Phonological Awareness Composite Score: this score comprises the standard scores of
three subtests for 5- and 6-year olds (i.e., Elision, Blending Words, and Sound Matching)
and two subtests for persons 7- through 24-years old (i.e., Elision and Blending Words).
Phonological Memory Composite Score: this score comprises the standard scores of two
subtests for all individuals (i.e., Memory for Digits and Nonword Repetition).
XXX, XX – Confidential
6
Rapid Naming Composite Score: this score comprises the standard scores of two subtests
for person’s 7- through 24-years old (i.e., Rapid Digit Naming and Rapid Letter Naming).
Following are the subtests scores (8-12 is the average range) and standard scores (121130 = Superior; 111-120 = Above Average; 90-110 = Average; 80-89 = Below Average;
70-79 = Poor). A difference of 15 points or more between two standard scores is
statistically significant. The corresponding percentile ranks are also listed (50 = average):
Sores in parentheses are from Dec. 2008.
CORE
Elision
Blending Words
Memory for Digits
Rapid Digit Naming
Nonword Repetition
Rapid Letter Naming
Standard
Score
7
9
5
9
7
9
%ile
COMPOSITES
16% Phonological Awareness
37% Phonological Memory
5% Rapid Naming
37%
16%
37%
Standard
Score
94
76
94
%ile
35%
5%
35%
According to this instrument, XX has developed overall average abilities in phonological
awareness and rapid naming. Memory for individual sounds and syllables is less
developed. XX had a great deal of difficulty holding digits or non-word sounds in
working memory. In Phonological Awareness, she demonstrated difficulty saying a word
and then locating a sound to omit and reconstituting the original word into a new word.
For example, she was asked to remove the sound of m in the word smell. While she made
a valiant effort, it was obviously extremely difficult for her to complete this task. She was
able to hold the task in working memory, so it is the actual task that XX finds difficult.
Memory for unrelated information is also an area of difficulty for XX. Despite her clearly
focused effort, she had true difficulty holding digit in working memory so that she could
repeat them. She had nearly the same level of difficulty repeating nonsense words
exceeding two or three syllables. Her difficulty holding unrelated but sequential
information in working memory is central to reading disability. XX displayed average
skill in rapidly naming numbers and letters, which supports the results of the KTEA and
also indicates that, with practice, she will develop oral reading skills that display prosody
and adequate speed and accuracy.
Gray Oral Reading Test-4
The GORT-4 is a norm-referenced, reliable, and valid test of oral reading rate, accuracy,
fluency and comprehension. It is designed to identify students who are significantly
below their peers in oral reading proficiency and who may profit from supplemental help,
and to aid in determining the particular kinds of reading strengths and weaknesses that
individual students possess. This instrument requires the student to read paragraphs of
increasing difficulty. Oral reading is timed to measure rate and scored for accuracy. The
rate and accuracy scores are then combined to generate a fluency score. After each
paragraph is read, the student chooses from five multiple choice questions to measure
XXX, XX – Confidential
7
comprehension. Subtest scores from 8 to 12 are in the Average range. The Total Score is
expressed as a Standard Score (90-110 is average) and Percentiles (25%-75% is average).
Results:
Rate
Accuracy
Fluency
Comprehension
Total Score
Standard Score
3
4
4
8
76
Percentile
1%
2%
2%
25%
5%
This test instrument shows that XX earned an overall score in the poor range. The
difference between her comprehension score and the fluency scores clearly illustrate the
wide discrepancy between what she can decode and what she is capable of understanding.
It is remarkable that she is able to glean meaning despite her significant challenges in
word decoding and fluency. She is willing to work methodically and slowly to gain
meaning, and her patience and perseverance should be included in the factors considered
when planning her educational program for the coming academic year.
Directed Reading Inventory
The DRA is used as the benchmark reading assessment for the primary grades. Since
XX’s reading level is at a late first to early second grade level, this instrument was used
to assess her reading skills within the level. XX was able to read a story at the end of
first/beginning second grade level (Level 18). She made good predictions and was able to
retell the story in sequence with good details, an understanding of the character
motivations, and the difference between this fantasy story and real life. However, her
accuracy was only 90%, which would preclude moving to a higher level due to decoding
difficulties.
Summary of Results:
XX is a motivated student who demonstrates average learning potential in the area of
verbal understanding and verbal expression. Her academic skills lag because she
struggles to overcome difficulties in working memory, parsing sounds within spoken
words, developing a bank of sight words for reading and spelling, quickly applying
decoding skills and developing mastery of math facts. XX is a resourceful student who
uses logic and common sense to compensate for these difficulties that cluster around
memorization and quick retrieval of math facts, letter-sound associations and spelling.
XX clearly benefits from learning within a meaningful context, which allows her to draw
on her good thinking and verbal comprehension skills to compensate for the issues with
memory and automaticity. In the same vein, she helps herself by talking herself through
problem-solving tasks with good results.
XX displays some anxiety about her academic performance, and it is concerning that she
repeatedly apologized for errors.
XXX, XX – Confidential
8
Taken together, the evidence leads this examiner to conclude there is a moderate to
severe specific learning disability that XX is trying to manage through resourceful
strategic problem solving.
Recommendations:
1. XX should continue to receive small group support in the regular education
classroom to address ongoing challenges in word decoding and acquiring
knowledge and mastery of syllable types and spelling patterns. The level of
support within the regular classroom should allow for support several times a day.
2. XX will benefit from continued individualized instruction in segmenting speech
sounds and other decoding strategies to improve mastery of word reading.
3. XX will benefit from daily practice with flash cards for sight words, phrases and
math facts.
4. XX has many good ideas and will write her thoughts, but she will need ongoing
support to develop application of the basic rules for capitalization and
punctuation.
5. XX will benefit from opportunities to develop oral reading fluency by engaging in
rereading of text on a regular basis. There are several fluency programs including
portions of the Fundations Program, Great Leaps,
Read Naturally and other more informal drills and practice.
6. XX’s parents may consider providing short fluency drills and practice with sight
words and phrases outside of school as an adjunct to regular weekly homework
assignments.
7. XX’s teachers need to reassure her and help her accept that she needs to make
errors to make progress. Mistakes should be framed as opportunities for learning
rather than something that causes her feelings of guilt.
As always, it was a true pleasure to work with XX during this evaluation. Please contact
me at 617-559- should you have any questions or comments.
________________________
Learning Center Teacher