In this study, we examined the reliability and validity of curriculum-based measures (CBM) in reading for indexing the performance of secondary-school students. Participants were 236 eighth-grade students (134 females and 102 males) in the classrooms of 17 English teachers. Students completed 1-, 2-, and 3-minute reading aloud and 2-, 3-, and 4-minute maze selection tasks. The relation between performance on the CBMs and the state reading test were examined. Results revealed that both reading aloud and maze selection were reliable and valid predictors of performance on the state standards tests, with validity coefficients above .70. An exploratory follow-up study was conducted in which the growth curves produced by the reading-aloud and maze-selection measures were compared for a subset of 31 students from the original study. For these 31 students, maze selection reflected change over time whereas reading aloud did not. This pattern of results was found for both lower-and higher-performing students. Results suggest that it is important to consider both performance and progress when examining the technical adequacy of CBMs. Implications for the use of measures with secondary-level students for progress monitoring are discussed.

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a method for monitoring student growth in an academic area and evaluating the effects of instructional programs on that growth (Deno, 1985). CBM was designed to be part of a problem-solving approach to special education whereby the academic difficulties of students would be viewed as problems to be solved rather than as immutable characteristics within a child (Deno, 1990). In the problem-solving approach, teachers were the "problem solvers" who constantly evaluated and modified students' instructional programs. For a problem-solving approach to be effective, it was necessary for teachers to have a tool that could be used to evaluate growth in response to instruction. CBM was developed to serve that purpose. Two separate but related concerns drove the initial research into the development of CBM (Deno, 1985). The first was the concern for technical adequacy. If teachers were to use the measures to make instructional decisions, the measures would have to have demonstrated reliability and validity. The second was the concern for practicality. If teachers were to use the measures on an ongoing and frequent basis to evaluate instructional programs, the measures would have to be simple, efficient, easily understood, and inexpensive. These dual concerns led to the concept of "vital signs," or indicators of student performance (Deno, 1985). CBM measures were conceptualized to be short samples of work that would be indicators, or vital signs, of academic performance. The samples would need to be valid and reliable with respect to the broader academic domain they were representing, but would also need to be designed to be given on a frequent and repeated basis. In 1989, Marston reviewed the existing research on CBM. At that time, CBM was viewed primarily as a progressmonitoring tool in basic skills for special education students at the elementary-school level (although there were discussions and instances of its uses more broadly, for example, see Shinn, 1989). Research in reading focused on two measures: word identification and reading aloud. The results of Marston's

This study identified competencies needed by teachers to supervise or direct the work of paraprofessionals in educational settings. Participants included 92 administrators, 266 teachers, and 211 paraprofessionals. Respondents completed a survey of prospective competencies for teachers supervising the work of paraprofessionals. In addition, respondents were asked about the extent to which they observed teachers' demonstration of these competencies in their school environments. Results of the study suggest that participants considered the competencies very important, but that the competencies were not observed as frequently as their perceived importance. For teachers who reported they did not demonstrate competencies, it was often due to a lack of preservice preparation or professional staff development opportunities. Implications for practice are discussed.

We examined the technical adequacy of writing progress measures as indicators of success on state standards tests. Tenth-grade students wrote for 10 min, marking their samples at 3, 5, and 7 min. Samples were scored for words written, words spelled correctly, and correct and correct minus incorrect word sequences. The number of correct minus incorrect word sequences written in 7 and 10 min yielded the highest reliability and validity coefficients. Tables of Probable Success were created to illustrate the relation between scores on the progress measures and the state tests. Exploratory analyses of differences in correlations between English Language Learners (ELL) and non-ELL students revealed a similar pattern of results for the 2 groups, but correlations were stronger for ELL students than for non-ELL students.

This study examined teacher behaviors, student responses, and classroom ecology in inclusive classrooms in four high schools that have had success at including students with disabilities in general education, and examined the differences in teacher and student behavior for students with and without disabilities. Using a computerized ecobehavioral assessment tool (EBASS), 199 observations in 118 inclusive classrooms were conducted. Major results were that (a) students with and without disabilities showed high levels of academic engagement and low levels of inappropriate behavior; (b) there were no significant differences in the behavior of students with and without disabilities; (c) teachers were active in their classrooms, spending more than 75% of their time involved in instructing, managing, and interacting with their students; and (d) students with disabilities were more often the focus of the teachers' attention than students without disabilities. Possible explanations for these results and implications for practice are discussed.