Project MORE Evaluation Results 2001-2006 Independent Evaluation conducted from 2001-to present by Center for Evaluation Services at Bowling Green State.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

RtI Response to Intervention

Advertisements

Data Collection Benchmark (CBM Family) Progress Monitoring Interventions Tiers Training/Materials Problem Solving Model Allocation of Resources.

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

Teacher In-Service August, Abraham Lincoln.

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

Mentoring in Ohio for Reading Excellence For 1 st – 4 th grade students with disabilities 30 mins. of instruction daily, 4 days/week One-on-one instruction.

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.

1 Referrals, Evaluations and Eligibility Determinations Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities Special Education.

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.,

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.

Designing Accessible Reading Assessments Research on Making Large Scale Assessments More Accessible for Students with Disabilities Institute of Education.

Assessment: Understanding the Psycho-Educational Evaluation Elizabeth A. Rizzi, MA NYS Certified School Psychologist John Jay High School.

The Parent as Advocate Peter W. D. Wright, Esq. Pamela Darr Wright, MA, MSW

Educational Assessment of Children

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

Specific Learning Disabilities in Plain English Specific Learning Disabilities in Plain English Children with specific learning disabilities (SLD) have.

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

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

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

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

RTI² Overview Response to Intervention? RTI² is NOT......Just a special education initiative...Only for students with disabilities...Only for beginning.

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.

NAEP 2011 Mathematics and Reading Results Challis Breithaupt November 1, 2011.

Objective The current study examined whether the timing of recovery from late onset of productive vocabulary (e.g., either earlier or later blooming) was.

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

Edissa J. & Pheakday N. EDSPE 6642 Seattle Pacific University Edissa J. & Pheakday N. EDSPE 6642 Seattle Pacific University.

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

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

Assessing Learners with Special Needs: An Applied Approach, 6e © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 5: Introduction to Norm- Referenced.

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

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.

1 The Course of Reading Disability in First Grade: Latent Class Trajectories and Early Predictors Don Compton, Lynn Fuchs, and Doug Fuchs.

A Look at Repeated Readings. Agenda What is repeated readings? Why is repeated readings effective? What does the supporting research for repeated readings.

The Wing Institute Summit 2007 Is RtI Evidence-based?

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

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

WISCONSIN’S NEW RULE FOR SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES Effective December 1, 2010.

White Hill Middle School Learning Center Program School Year Report David Finnane, Principal Kim Kern, Assistant Principal.

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

Center for Institutional Effectiveness LaMont Rouse, Ph.D. Fall 2015.

Evaluation Results MRI’s Evaluation Activities: Surveys Teacher Beliefs and Practices (pre/post) Annual Participant Questionnaire Data Collection.

Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress

Effects of Software Products Findings from the National Evaluation Mark Dynarski Presentation at the 2009 IES Annual Conference Mark Dynarski Presentation.

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.

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

Response to Intervention for PST Dr. Kenneth P. Oliver Macon County Schools’ Fall Leadership Retreat November 15, 2013.

Understanding Learning Disability Documentation

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

Time for Change: Examining Utah Data Relating to Student Performance

Gibraltar School District

What is Value Added?.

Bursting the assessment mythology: A discussion of key concepts

Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement - III

EVAAS Overview.

Anderson Elementary School

Grade one First term Second term Learning unit Learning unit

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.

Presentation transcript:

Project MORE Evaluation Results Independent Evaluation conducted from 2001-to present 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.

Overall Project MORE Results and New Directions Over the 6 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 control students in the numerous comparisons on both informal and standardized assessments. Over the course of five years, there were no analyses in which the control group outperformed Project MORE students at a statistically significant level. Project MORE Evaluation to be published in Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities (December, 2007) CES will complete a full-year Regression Discontinuity Evaluation Piloting an Implementation Integrity Checklist for Reading- tutors program in Project MORE Evaluation Results available November 2007.

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.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.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.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.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.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.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.