Project MORE 2001-2008 Independent Evaluation Completed by The Center for Evaluation Services Bowling Green State University Updated 11/12.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Extensive Reading Intervention in K-3

Advertisements

Achievement Tests Designed to measure the skills and abilities acquired through direct instruction or intervention. Can measure both lower order and high.

MAP: Basics Overview Jenny McEvoy and Page Powell.

Achievement Analyses – Matched Cohort Groups Oklahoma A+ Schools® vs. Randomly Matched OKCPS Students  OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS  PLANNING, RESEARCH,

November 2009 Oregon RTI Project Cadre 5.  Participants will understand both general IDEA evaluation requirements and evaluation requirements for Specific.

Why M.O.R.E. is better! The Action Plan for the Mentoring in Ohio for Reading Excellence Program at Elmwood Local Schools at Elmwood Local Schools December.

11 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 3 Report Research and Policy Support Group February 2012.

Project MORE Mentoring in Ohio for Reading Excellence Images were found using Google image search Mentor Training.

Learning Disabled or Curriculum Casualty? The importance of phonemic awareness in reading.

North Penn School District Phase III Update Introduction to Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTII): A Schoolwide Framework for Student Success.

*This is a small school district of fewer than 1000 students located in northern Illinois. *The district consists of: an Elementary School (Pre-K--4 th.

Universal Screening: Answers to District Leaders Questions Are you uncertain about the practical matters of Response to Intervention?

The Criteria for Determining SLD When Using an RTI-based Process Part I In the previous session you were presented the main components of RtI, given a.

Hill Center Regional Education Model Year One Woodcock-Johnson III Evaluation Results Brunswick County Schools Presented by: Tamara Walser, Ph.D.,

RTI Data-based Decisions Marilyn Bechtel Psychologist/Elliott Elementary School Lincoln Public Schools July 30, 2007.

Thinking Smart About Assessment Ben Clarke, Ph.D. Rachell Katz, Ph.D. August 25, 2004 Oregon Reading First Mentor Coach Training © 2004 by the Oregon Reading.

Assessments and Academic Growth 2014 –15 Required Actions for the LAP Student Growth Collection.

Ventura County SELPA Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Model: An Overview This PowerPoint is provided as an overview to the Ventura County SELPA.

2014 SOAR Update AAEA Fall Conference presented by Ivy Pfeffer, Assistant Commissioner Arkansas Department of Education October 29, 2014.

Joint Predictive Probabilities of Oral Reading Fluency for Reading Comprehension Young-Suk Kim & Yaacov Petscher Florida State University & Florida Center.

Co-Teaching as Best Practice in Student Teaching Data Collection Information 1.

Chapter 9 Fluency Assessment Tina Jensen. What? Fluency Assessment Consists of listening to students read aloud for a given time to collect information.

Presented by: Tanya Braden, SSTR1 Consultant KoAnn Rutter, Elmwood Local Schools 2012 PROJECT MORE CONFERENCE.

Richland School District 2013 EOY Gains Analysis Data reflects implementation by 7/16/13 export.

Dr. Bonnie J. Faddis & Dr. Margaret Beam RMC Research Fidelity of Implementation and Program Impact.

1 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009 HIGHLIGHTS Research and Policy Support Group FOR PRESS OFFICE.

Progress Monitoring and Response to Intervention Solution.

MI draft of IDEIA 2004 (Nov 2009) WHAT HAS CHANGED? How LD is identified:  Discrepancy model strongly discouraged  Response To Instruction/Intervention.

What Was Learned from a Second Year of Implementation IES Research Conference Washington, DC June 8, 2009 William Corrin, Senior Research Associate MDRC.

RTI: Response to Intervention An Evidence-Based Practice.

 Introduction to Project MORE: Mentoring in Ohio for Reading Excellence Teresa Woodin Coordinator of Special Services Fall, 2010.

Woodcock Johnson Results Before the WJIII test results are discussed, a brief explanation of scores is offered. In order to find out what scores are high,

1 Project MORE Report for Your School Insert Picture here by Going to Insert then Picture then choose a picture that you have placed on your.

From Screening to Verification: The RTI Process at Westside Jolene Johnson, Ed.S. Monica McKevitt, Ed.S.

Response to Instruction: Using Data to Make Decisions PRESENTER: Lexie Domaradzki.

Teacher-Student Ratio and Elementary Children’s Academic Achievement Wendy Jowers, Teri Paulk, and Sol Summerlin.

Special Education Referral and Evaluation Report Oregon RTI Project Sustaining Districts Trainings

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EARLY READING INTERVENTION FOR SELF-EFFICACY (E-RISE) ON FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD GRADE STUDENTS IN AN AT-RISK.

2006 OSEP Project Directors Meeting 1 Screening and Progress Monitoring for Identification of Reading Disabilities within an RTI Model Screening and Progress.

HOW DO WE USE DIBELS WITH AN OUTCOMES-DRIVEN MODEL? Identify the Need for Support Validate the Need for Support Plan Support Evaluate Effectiveness of.

Benchmark Data Meetings Presented to Coaches September 6, 2013 Adapted from MiBLSi materials.

JUNE 2014 K-3 COUNTYWIDE READING DATA. RESULTS COLLECTED.

Evaluation and Eligibility Using RTI Crook County School District February 26, 2010.

Project MORE Evaluation Results Independent Evaluation conducted from 2001-to present by Center for Evaluation Services at Bowling Green State.

Dyslexia: To Screen or Not to Screen Wendy Stovall, Ed.S., Keri Horn, Ed.S., Amber Broadway, Ed.S., & Mary Bryant, Ed.S. Crowley’s Ridge Education Service.

Fidelity of Implementation A tool designed to provide descriptions of facets of a coherent whole school literacy initiative. A tool designed to provide.

Early Identification of Introductory Major's Biology Students for Inclusion in an Academic Support Program BETHANY V. BOWLING and E. DAVID THOMPSON Department.

Where Do You Stand? Using Data to Size Up Your School’s Progress Michael C. McKenna University of Virginia.

June 2015 K-3 Reading Countywide Data. Results Collected.

Winter  The RTI.2 framework integrates Common Core State Standards, assessment, early intervention, and accountability for at-risk students in.

Welcome to the Annual Meeting of Title I Parents.

DRA DEVELOPMENTAL READING ASSESSMENT DeEtte Wick Victoria.

Progress Monitoring Goal Setting Overview of Measures Keith Drieberg, Director of Psychological Services John Oliveri, School Psychologist Cathleen Geraghty,

FES State of the Schools. Reading – 85% of FES students will meet or exceed state standards on the MCA-II in reading. We will improve scores on DIBELS.

Extensive Reading Interventions in Grades K - 3: From Research to Practice Scammacca, Vaughn, Roberts, Wanzek, & Torgesen (2007)

Anderson School Accreditation We commit to continuous growth and improvement by  Creating a culture for learning by working together  Providing.

WestEd.org Washington Private Schools RtI Conference Follow- up Webinar October 16, 2012 Silvia DeRuvo Pam McCabe WestEd Center for Prevention and Early.

Policy Recommendation Best Practices in Reading Achievement to Address Reading Failure Roxanne Boyd Walden University.

1 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Language Arts Pilot: Summary of Kindergarten and Grade 1 Results HIGHLIGHTS Research and Policy Support Group.

STAR Reading. Purpose Periodic progress monitoring assessment Quick and accurate estimates of reading comprehension Assessment of reading relative to.

Early Literacy Screening: Comparing PALS-K with AIMSweb and STAR

What is Value Added?.

Data-Based Leadership

Oregon Reading First Summary Outcomes at the End of Year 1: Students at Benchmark (On Track) (C) 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.

Oregon Reading First Summary Outcomes at the End of Year 1: Students at Benchmark (On Track) © 2005 by the Oregon Reading First Center Center on Teaching.

Literacy Updates.

MOY Data Analysis Increasing Achievement and Growth Grant NW BOCES

K-3 Reading Countywide Data

Variability in the skills measured by tests of “reading comprehension across tests and across grade levels Dr. Joseph Torgesen Florida State University.

Split-Block Class Schedule at Yorktown High School

Presentation transcript:

Project MORE Independent Evaluation Completed by The Center for Evaluation Services Bowling Green State University Updated 11/12

Project MORE Evaluation Results Independent Evaluation conducted from 2001-to 2008 by Center for Evaluation Services at Bowling Green State University Consistent Causal Comparative Results at the Statistically Significant Level (.05) over six years. Evaluation Results to be published in Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities (December, 2007) to qualify as Scientifically- Based Research.

Project MORE Results ( ) 1 st Grade Title 1 Comparison MORE students made more reading progress gains than control students for Wordlist level and Reading Errors 2 nd Grade Title 1 Comparison MORE students made more reading progress gains than control students for Wordlist level 3 rd Grade Title 1 Comparison MORE students made more reading progress gains than control students for Wordlist level, Scaled Score, Instructional Reading Level, Grade Equivalent, and Normal Curve Equivalent 3 rd Grade SLD Comparison MORE students made more reading progress gains than control students for for Scaled Score, Instructional Reading Level, and Normal Curve Equivalent 4 th Grade SLD Comparison MORE students made more reading progress gains than control students for for Reading Fluency First, CES looked at Project MORE reading gains with BGSU Informal Reading Assessment and the STAR Reading Assessment Results: Students with specific learning disabilities, cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbances, and Title 1 students had statistically significant gains, and in many cases there were month-for-month reading gains. Project MORE students with disabilities and students receiving Title 1 services were compared to similar students based on the State of Ohio’s Similar District Software. Both the Project MORE students and the control students were receiving either Title 1 or special education prescribed services. However, Project MORE students received HOSTS as or in addition to their prescribed Title 1 or special education services. Results are presented below.

Project MORE Results ( ) First, CES looked at Project MORE reading gains with BGSU Informal Reading Assessment, the STAR Reading Assessment, and the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Achievement Assessment Results: Students with specific learning disabilities, cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbances, and Title 1 students had statistically significant gains, and in many cases there were month-for-month reading gains on the STAR. Project MORE students with disabilities and students receiving Title 1 services were compared to similar students based on the State of Ohio’s Similar District Software. Both the Project MORE students and the control students were receiving either Title 1 or special education prescribed services. However, Project MORE students received HOSTS as or in addition to their prescribed Title 1 or special education services. The Woodcock-Johnson Reading Achievement battery was piloted with 2 groups for the school year. Results are presented below. 2 nd Grade Title 1 Comparison MORE students made more reading progress gains than control students for BGSU Reading Fluency and Comprehension, STAR Scaled Score, Grade Equivalent, Instructional Reading Level, Normal Curve Equivalent, Woodcock-Johnson Word and Letter Identification 4 th Grade LD Comparison MORE students made more reading progress gains than control students for for Word Attack

Project MORE Results ( ) BGSU: Wordlist Level3rd grade Title 1 students, 2nd grade students with cognitive disabilities BGSU: Reading Fluency3rd grade Title 1 students, 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities BGSU: Reading Comprehension3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Broad Reading 2nd, 3rd grade Title 1 students, 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Basic Reading 3rd grade Title 1 students, 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Letter/Word Identification 3rd grade Title 1 students, 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Word Attack (Decoding) 3rd grade Title 1 students 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities First, CES looked at Project MORE reading gains with BGSU Informal Reading Assessment and the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Achievement Assessment Results: Students with specific learning disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and Title 1 students had statistically significant gains, and in many cases there were month-for-month reading gains. Project MORE students with disabilities and students receiving Title 1 services were compared to similar students based on the State of Ohio’s Similar District Software. Both the Project MORE students and the control students were receiving either Title 1 or special education prescribed services. However, Project MORE students received HOSTS as or in addition to their prescribed Title 1 or special education services. Results are presented below.

Project MORE Results ( ) DIBELS2nd grade students with specific learning disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and students receiving Title 1 Woodcock Johnson: Broad Reading 2nd grade students receiving Title 1 Woodcock Johnson: Basic Reading 2nd grade students with specific learning disabilities and students receiving Title 1 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Letter/Word Identification 2nd grade students with specific learning disabilities and students receiving Title 1 3rd grade students students receiving Title 1 Woodcock Johnson: Reading Fluency 2nd grade students with cognitive disabilities and students receiving Title 1 Woodcock Johnson: Reading Comprehension 2nd grade students with cognitive disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Word Attack (Decoding) 2nd grade students with specific learning disabilities 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Examined two Project MORE mentoring programs: HOSTS (established) v. Reading-tutors (pilot) v. control students Students in HOSTS and Reading-tutors had similar reading gains although as expected the established program had a few more significant gains Results: Students with specific learning disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and Title 1 students had statistically significant gains, and in many cases there were month-for-month reading gains. Project MORE students with disabilities and students receiving Title 1 services were compared to similar students based on the State of Ohio’s Similar District Software. Both the Project MORE students and the control students were receiving either Title 1 or special education prescribed services. However, Project MORE students received HOSTS or Readng-tutors as or in addition to their prescribed Title 1 or special education services. Results are presented below.

Project MORE Results ( ) DIBELS3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities and students receiving Title 1 Woodcock Johnson: Broad Reading 3rd grade students receiving Title 1 Woodcock Johnson: Reading Fluency 3rd grade students receiving Title 1 Woodcock Johnson: Reading Comprehension 3rd grade students receiving Title 1 Examined two Project MORE mentoring programs: HOSTS v. Reading-tutors v. control students in only 3 groups of students 2nd and 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities and 3rd grade students receiving Title 1 services. Students in HOSTS and Reading-tutors had similar reading gains although Reading-tutors program had a few more significant gains Results: Students with specific learning disabilities and Title 1 students had statistically significant gains, and in many cases there were month-for-month reading gains. Project MORE students with disabilities and students receiving Title 1 services were compared to similar students based on the State of Ohio’s Similar District Software. Both the Project MORE students and the control students were receiving either Title 1 or special education prescribed services. However, Project MORE students received HOSTS or Reading-tutors as or in addition to their prescribed Title 1 or special education services. Results are presented below.

Project MORE Results ( ) DIBELS2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Broad Reading 3rd and 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Basic Reading 3rd and 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Letter-Word Identification 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Word Attack (Decoding) 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Examined two Project MORE mentoring programs: Reading-tutors v. control students in only 3 groups of students 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities. Results: Students with specific learning disabilities had statistically significant gains, and in many cases there were month-for-month reading gains. Project MORE students with disabilities were compared to similar students based on the State of Ohio’s Similar District Software. Both the Project MORE students and the control students were receiving special education prescribed services. However, Project MORE students received Reading-tutors as or in addition to their prescribed special education services. Results are presented below.

Project MORE Results ( ) DIBELS3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Basic Reading 3rd and 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Letter-Word Identification 3rd grade students with specific learning disabilities Woodcock Johnson: Word Attack (Decoding) 3rd and 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities Examined two Project MORE mentoring programs: Reading-tutors v. control students in only 2 groups of students 3rd and 4th grade students with specific learning disabilities. Results: Students with specific learning disabilities had statistically significant gains, and in many cases there were month-for-month reading gains. Project MORE students with disabilities were compared to similar students based on the State of Ohio’s Similar District Software. Both the Project MORE students and the control students were receiving special education prescribed services. However, Project MORE students received Reading-tutors as or in addition to their prescribed special education services. Results are presented below.

Project MORE Results ( ) Regression Discontinuity: In CES utilized a Regression Discontinuity Design to evaluate the effects of Project MORE on students’ reading fluency gains. The Oral Reading Fluency section of DIBELS was given to all 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders at grade level for the 11 Project MORE schools (not all schools used Project MORE at all three grade levels). The Fall Benchmark was the pretest, and the Spring Benchmark was the posttest. Each grade level had a different cut-off score to determine whether students were in the MORE group (intervention) or the control group. However, the cut-off score differed depending on school. For the overall analysis, we chose the highest Project MORE words-per-minute score at Fall Benchmark as the cut-off score. The control group students were all students at Project MORE schools who had higher words-per-minute scores on the Fall Benchmark, but did not receive the Project MORE intervention. Thus, the Project MORE group (intervention) were students with disabilities or at-risk for reading failure. The control group were general education students. The intervention group (Project MORE students), which has the lower reading pretest scores, must have significantly higher reading gains (in this case, words-per-minute) than their fellow students with higher pretest scores (control group). It is very difficult for an intervention to produce this type of result at a statistically significant level. RESULTS: The results indicated that the DIBELS posttest scores increased at a statistically significantly higher rate for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at- risk) than for their classmates (without disabilities) in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades during the school year.

2nd Grade Regression Discontinuity Results and Summary 2nd grade results: Fall-to-spring reading gains on DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at-risk) were compared to their classmates (without disabilities) to measure reading growth rate due to the Project MORE intervention at 10 schools. The results indicated that the DIBELS posttest scores increased at a statistically significantly higher rate for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at-risk) than for their classmates without disabilities (T = 7.55 p <.00) predorf p o s t d o r f 48 CONTORL INTRVNT GROUP

3rd Grade Regression Discontinuity Results and Summary 3rd grade results: Fall-to-spring reading gains on DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at-risk) were compared to their classmates (without disabilities) to measure reading growth rate due to the Project MORE intervention at 9 schools. The results indicated that the DIBELS posttest scores increased at a statistically significantly higher rate for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at-risk) than for their classmates without disabilities (T = 4.20 p <.00).

4th Grade Regression Discontinuity Results and Summary 4th grade results: Fall-to-spring reading gains on DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at- risk) were compared to their classmates (without disabilities) to measure reading growth rate due to the Project MORE intervention at 6 schools. The results indicated that the DIBELS posttest scores increased at a statistically significantly higher rate for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at-risk) than for their classmates without disabilities (T = 2.25 p <.03).

Overall Project MORE Results and New Directions Over the 7 year period, the evaluation has established Project MORE students have significant reading gains that many times are month-for-month. Overall, Project MORE students outperformed the comparison students in the numerous comparisons on both informal and standardized assessments. Over the course of seven years, there were no analyses in which the control group outperformed Project MORE students at a statistically significant level. Piloting an Implementation Integrity Checklist for Reading-tutors program in was completed in the Spring of Utilizing a Regression Discontinuity Design, the results indicated that the DIBELS posttest scores increased at a statistically significantly higher rate for Project MORE students (with disabilities and at-risk) than for their classmates (without disabilities) in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades. These results will be submitted for publication in the Fall of Project MORE Evaluation was published in Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities (December, 2007)