References

Meets WWC evidence standards

Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2006). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized
field trial of Success for All. Retrieved from Success for All website: http://www.successforall.net/_images/pdfs/Third_Year_Results_06.doc

Additional sources:
Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., & Madden, N. A. (2004). Success for All: Preliminary first-year results from the national randomized field trial. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation.

Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005). Success for All: First-year results from the national randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 1–22.

Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005, Winter). The national randomized field trial of Success for All: Second-year outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 673–696.

Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 701.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Chambers, B., & Borman, G. (2005). A randomized evaluation of Success for All: Second-year outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation.

Meets evidence standards with reservations

Dianda, M., & Flaherty, J. (1995, April). Effects of Success for All on the reading achievement of first graders in California bilingual programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Additional sources:
Dianda, M. R., & Flaherty, J. F. (1995). Report on work station uses: Effects of Success for All on the reading achievement of first graders in California bilingual programs. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED394327)

Livingston, M., & Flaherty, J. (1997). Effects of Success for All on reading achievement in California schools. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Effects of bilingual and English as a second language adaptations of Success for All on the reading achievement of students acquiring English. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 4(4), 393–416. (Study: California)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41–76. (Study: California)

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 123–148.

Additional sources:
Borman, G. D., & Hewes, G. M. (2002). The long-term effects and cost effectiveness of Success for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 243–266.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Success for All: Multi-year effects of a schoolwide elementary restructuring program. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. (Study: Baltimore, MD)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All in the Baltimore City Public Schools: Year 6 report. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research in Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41–76. (Study: Baltimore, MD)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994). “Whenever and wherever we choose”: The replication of Success for All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639–647. (Study: Baltimore, MD)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Baltimore, MD)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1990). Success for All: Second year report. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Public Education Institute and Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All in the Baltimore City Public Schools: Year 5 report. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., & McNelis, M. (1997). Evaluation of elementary school school-wide programs: Clover Park School District, year 1: 1996–97. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Additional source:
Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., McNelis, M., & Smith, L. J. (1997). Evaluation of elementary school-wide programs: Clover Park School District year 2: 1997–98. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998). Longitudinal study of student literacy achievement in different Title I school-wide programs in Fort Wayne community schools – Year 2: First grade results. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.

Additional sources:
Casey, J., Smith, L. J., & Ross, S. M. (1994). 1993–1994 Fort Wayne, Indiana SFA Results. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1995). Final report: 1994-95 Success for All program in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Johnson, B. (1993). Final report: 1992–93 Success for All program in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. (1994, April). Using Success for All to restructure elementary schools: A tale of four cities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Ft. Wayne, IN)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41–76. (Study: Ft. Wayne, IN)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Ft. Wayne, IN)

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353. (Study: Ft. Wayne, IN)

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., Faulks, A., Casey, J., Shapiro, M., & Johnson, B. (1993). Final report: 1991–92 Success for All program in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., McNelis, M., Lewis, T., & Loomis, S. (1998). Evaluation of Success for All programs: Little Rock School District year 1: 1997–1998. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.

Additional sources:
Wang, L. W., & Ross, S. M. (1999). Evaluation of Success for All program: Little Rock School District year 2: 1998–1999. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Wang, L. W., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Evaluation of Success for All programs: Little Rock School District year 1: 1997–1998. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., Faulks, A., Casey, J., Shapiro, M., & Johnson, B. (1993). 1991–1992 Ft. Wayne, Indiana SFA results. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.

Additional source:
Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353.

Studies that fall outside the Beginning Reading protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Ahearn, E. M. (1994). Involvement of students with disabilities in the New American Schools development corporation projects. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED371513) This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Atkinson, C. L. H. (1998). An analysis of the impact of Success for All on reading, attendance, and academic self-efficacy with at-risk elementary school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(10), 3699A. (UMI No. 9905180) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Barnes, C., Camburn, E., Kim, J. S., & Rowan, B. (2005, April). School leadership and instructional improvement in CSR schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Berends, M., Chun, J., Schuyler, G., Stockly, S., & Briggs, R. J. (2002). Challenges of conflicting school reforms: New American Schools in a high-poverty district. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464984) This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2000). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451204) This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Bifulco, R. (2001). Do whole-school reform models boost student performance: Evidence from New York City. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(06), 1991A. (UMI No. 3019134) The study does not meet evidence standards because the overall attrition rate exceeds WWC standards for this area.

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Casey, J., Smith, L. J., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Final report: 1993–94 Success for All program in Memphis, Tennessee: Formative evaluation of new SFA schools. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Chamberlain, A., Daniels, C., Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (n.d.). A randomized evaluation of the Success for All middle school reading program. Middle Grades Research Journal, 2(1), 1–21. The study is ineligible for review because it does not
use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Chambers, B., Abrami, P. C., & Morrison, S. (2001). Can Success for All succeed in Canada? In R. E. Slavin & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Success for All: Research and reform in elementary education (pp. 93–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Chambers, B., Cheung, A. C. K., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Gifford, R. (2006). Achievement effects of embedded multimedia in a Success for All reading program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 232–237.This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Gifford, R., Madden, N., & Slavin, R. E. (2004). Achievement effects of embedded multimedia in a Success For All reading program. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation.

Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A., & Gifford, R. (2005). Enhancing Success for All for Hispanic students: Effects on beginning reading achievement. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A., & Gifford, R. (2004). Effects of Success for All with embedded video on the beginning reading achievement of Hispanic children. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Clarke, P. A. (2001). Analysis of the Success for All and School Development programs and their effects on reading comprehension. Union, NJ: Kean University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456426) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2006). CSRQ center report on elementary school CSR models. Washington, DC: Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, American Institutes for Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143–170. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Dicembre, E. (2002). How they turned the ship around. Journal of Staff Development, 23(2), 32–35. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 1–29. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Gines, B. E. (2005). Comparing two comprehensive reform models: Their effect on student reading achievement. Retrieved from http://edt.missouri.edu/Summer2005/
Dissertation/GinesB-080205-D3033/. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Greenlaw, M. J. (2004). A case study examining the relationships among teachers’ perceptions of the Success for All reading program, teachers’ sense of efficacy, students’ attitudes toward reading and students’ reading achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(07), 2541A. (UMI No. 3139431) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Grehan, A. W. (2001). The effects of the Success for All program on improving reading readiness skills for at-risk students in kindergarten. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(10), 3292A. (UMI No. 3029892) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Hankerson, K. M. (2004). A cross-case study of the practices of the Success for All (SFA) facilitator. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(03), 836A. (UMI No. 3126318) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Harris, A., Hopkins, D., & Wordsworth, J. (2001). The implementation and impact of Success for All in English schools. In R. E. Slavin, & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Success for All: Research and reform in elementary education (pp. 81–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2001). Success for All: A community model for advancing Arabs and Jews in Israel. In R. E. Slavin, & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Success for All: Research and reform in elementary education (pp. 149–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.

Hess, P. M. (2004). A study of teachers’ selection and implementation of meta-cognitive reading strategies for fourth/fifth grade reading comprehension from a Success for All reading program perspective: Moving beyond the fundamentals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(07), 2542A. (UMI No. 3140930) This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Hicks, J. E. (2006). A systems analysis of the Success for All reading program: Student achievement and teacher perceptions. (Texas A&M University—Commerce; 1287 Advisor: Adviser Wayne Linek). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(12A), 190–4433. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hurley, E. A., Chamberlain, A., Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). Effects of Success for All on TAAS reading scores—a Texas statewide evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(10), 750–756. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

James, D. W., Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2001). Raising minority academic achievement: A compendium of education programs and practices. Retrieved from American Youth Policy Forum website: http://www.aypf.org/publications/rmaa/pdfs/Book.pdf. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

James, L. R. D. (2003). The effect of the Success for All reading approach on fourth- and fifth-grade students’ standardized reading assessment scores. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(11), 3896A. (UMI No. 3072259) This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Jenkins, J. R., & O’Connor, R. E. (2005). Cooperative learning for students with learning disabilities: Evidence from experiments, observations, and interviews. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds), Handbook of learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Publications. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Jones, E. M., Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1997). Success for some: An evaluation of a Success for All program. Evaluation Review, 21(6), 643–670. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Additional sources:
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41–76. (Study: Charleston, SC)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Charleston, SC)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994). “Whenever and wherever we choose”: The replication of Success for All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639–647. (Study: Charleston, SC)

Kapushion, B. M. (2003). A qualitative study of “Success for All—Roots and Wings” on four Jefferson County schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(01), 58A. (UMI No. 3078189) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Klingner, J., Cramer, E., & Harry, B. (2006). Challenges in the implementation of Success for All in four high-need urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 333–349. The study is ineligible for review because it does not does not include a student outcome.

Koh, M. S., & Robertson, J. S. (2003). School reform models and special education. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 421–442. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Lewis, J. L., & Bartz, M. (1999). New American Schools designs: An analysis of program results in district schools—Cincinnati Public Schools. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Public Schools, Research and Evaluation Office. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Lucius, L. B. (2000). A comparison of three kindergarten curricula on language and literacy performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(01), 65A. (UMI No. 3003007) This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Madden, N. A. (2006). Reducing the gap: Success for All and the achievement of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 389–400. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Simons, K. (1999). MathWings: Effects on student mathematics performance (Report No. 39). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Manset, G., St. John, E. P., Simmons, A., Michael, R., Bardzell, J., Hodges, D., et al. (1999). Indiana’s early literacy intervention grant program impact study for 1997–98. Retrieved from ERIC: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_ storage_01/0000019b/80/16/20/33.pdf. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Mason, B. (2005). Achievement effects of five comprehensive school reform designs implemented in Los Angeles Unified School District. Doctoral dissertation, Pardee RAND Graduate School. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Massue, F. M. (1999). Effects of engaging in Success for All on children’s causal attributions. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Concordia University, Department of Education. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

McCollum, S., McNeese, M. N., Styron, R., & Lee, D. E. (2007). A school district comparison of reading achievement based on three reading programs. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 13(1; 1), 1–6. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

McCollum-Rogers, S. A. (2004). Comparing Direct Instruction and Success for All with a basal reading program in relation to student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(10), 3642A. (UMI No. 3149920) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

McCoy, E. B. (2005). The performance of student participants in externally developed Title I schoolwide reading interventions in the Little Rock school district as measured by national, state and local standardized tests. Unpublished dissertation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, College of Education. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Motte, A. M. (2006). Success for All: Program effects on three elementary schools in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. Unpublished dissertation (70244960). This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Munoz, M. A., Dossett, D., & Judy-Gallans, K. (2003). Educating students placed at risk: Evaluating the impact of Success for All in urban settings. Retrieved from ERIC: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01
/0000019b/80/1b/5a/49.pdf. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Nunnery, J. A., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Hunter, P., et al. (1997, March). Effects of full and partial implementations of Success for All on student reading achievement in English and Spanish. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional sources:
Nunnery, J. A. (1995). An assessment of Success for All program component effects on the reading achievement of at-risk first grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(01), 155A. (UMI No. 9615378)

Nunnery, J. A., Slavin, R. E., Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Hunter, P., & Stubbs, J. (1996, April). An assessment of Success for All program component configuration effects on the reading achievement of at-risk first grade students. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Peurach, D. J. (2005). Designing and managing comprehensive school reform: The case of Success for All. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Pogrow, S. (2002). Success for All is a failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 463–468. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Pogrow, S. (2003). [Pogrow final debate]. Unpublished raw data.

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. The Elementary School Journal, 108(1), 3–25. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading recovery 20 years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(2), 199–223. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998). Longitudinal study of student literacy achievement in different Title I school-wide programs in Fort Wayne community schools—Year 2: First grade results. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998). Success for All evaluation: 1997–1998 Tigard-Tualatin School District. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994). Effects of the Success for All model on kindergarten through second-grade reading achievement, teachers’ adjustment, and classroom-school climate at an inner-city school. The Elementary School Journal, 95(2), 121–138. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Additional sources:
Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1992). Final report: 1991–92 Success for All program in Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. (1994, April). Using Success for All to restructure elementary schools: A tale of four cities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Memphis, TN)

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Crawford, A., Eck, L., Lohr, L., & Faulks, A. (1991). Final report: Success for All 1990–91 Memphis program. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41–76. (Study: Memphis, TN)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Memphis, TN)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994). “Whenever and wherever we choose”: The replication of Success for All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639–647. (Study: Memphis, TN)

Ross, S. M., Fleischman, S. W., & Hornbeck, M. (2003). Progress and options regarding the implementation of Direct Instruction and Success for All in Toledo public schools. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Ross, S. M., Nunnery, J. A., Goldfeder, E., McDonald, A., Rachor, R., Hornbeck, M., et al. (2004). Using school reform models to improve reading achievement: A longitudinal study of direct instruction and Success for All in an urban district. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 9(4), 357–388. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Ross, S. M., Nunnery, J. A., & Smith, L. J. (1996). Evaluation of Title I reading programs: Amphitheater public schools—Year 1: 1995–1996. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., Nunnery, J. A., & Smith, L. J. (1996). Evaluation of Title I reading programs: Amphitheater public schools—Year 1: 1995–1996. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.

Additional source:
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Effects of bilingual and English as a second language adaptations of Success for All on the reading achievement of students acquiring English. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 4(4), 393–416. (Study: Arizona)

Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., & Wright, S. P. (2000). Fourth-year achievement results on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for restructuring schools in Memphis. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., & Alberg, M. (2001). Two- and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1992). Final report: 1991–92 Success for All program in Caldwell, Idaho. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Additional sources:
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. (1994, April). Using Success for All to restructure elementary schools: A tale of four cities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Caldwell, ID)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41–76. (Study: Caldwell, ID)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Caldwell, ID)

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353. (Study: Caldwell, ID)

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention programs. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 773–800.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1997). Final report: 1996–97 Success for All program in Clark County, Georgia. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for All on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 2(1), 29–53. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1999). Bridging the gap: The effects of the Success for All program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(2), 129–150.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention programs. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 773–800. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Crawford, A., Eck, L., Lohr, L., & Faulks, A. (1991). Final report: Success for All 1990–91 Memphis program. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Nunnery, J. A. (1998, April). The relationship of program implementation quality and student achievement. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Additional source:
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Lewis, T., & Nunnery, J. A. (1996). 1995–96 evaluation of Roots and Wings in Memphis City Schools. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Nunnery, J. A. (1998, April). Title I as a catalyst for school improvement: Impact of alternative schoolwide models on the reading achievement of students at risk. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Ross, S. M., Tabachnick, S., & Sterbinsky, A. (2002). Using comprehensive school reform models to raise student achievement: Factors associated with success in Memphis. Retrieved from New American Schools website: http://web.archive.org/ web/20031218233713/http://www.naschools.org/uploadedfiles/Ross+Using+
Comprehensive+School+Reform+Models.pdf. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Ross, S. M., Wang, W., Sanders, W. L., & Wright, S. P. (1999). Teacher mobility and effectiveness in restructuring and non-restructuring schools in an inner-city district. Retrieved from SAS Institute website: http://www.sas.com/govedu/edu/
teacher_mobility.pdf. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Ross, S. M., Wang, L. W., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Stringfield, S. (1999). Two- and three-year achievement results on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for restructuring schools in Memphis. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Ross, T. (2005). An investigation of the Success for All reading program in three Mississippi elementary schools. Unpublished dissertation, Mississippi State University, Starkville. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252–297. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Ross, S. M., & Wang, L. W. (2000). Value-added achievement results for three cohorts of Roots and Wings schools in Memphis: 1995–1999 outcomes. Retrieved from Success for All Foundation website: http://successforall.com/_images/pdfs/Ross_Roots_Wings_99.pdf. This study is
ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Schneider, F. H. (1999). Impact of the Success for All program in the teaching of reading for third grade students in selected elementary schools in the Pasadena Independent School District. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06), 1965A. (UMI No. 9934489) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Seligo Boehle, D. (2003). How schema appropriate alternate assessments affect the oral reading accuracy and oral reading fluency of selected first-grade students using the school-wide reform model Success for All. Masters Abstracts International, 42(02), 383. (UMI No. 1416013) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Calhoon, M. B., Furlow, C. F., & Sartor, D. L. (2006). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in reading for urban middle school students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 322–328. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Simpson, S. H. (1997). A principal’s perspective of the implementation of Reading Recovery in six metropolitan Nashville elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(08), 2948A. (UMI No. 9806596) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Skindrud, K., & Gersten, R. (2006). An evaluation of two contrasting approaches for improving reading achievement in a large urban district. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 389–407. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Slavin, R. E. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress and the Institute for America’s Future. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Slavin, R. E., Leighton, M., & Yampolsky, R. (1990). Success for All: Effects on the achievement of limited English proficient children (Report No. 5). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED331585) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Additional sources:
Slavin, R. E., & Yampolsky, R. (1991). Effects of Success for All on students with limited English proficiency: A three-year evaluation. Retrieved from Success for All Foundation website: http://www.successforall.net/_images/pdfs/englanlearn.htm.

Slavin, R. E., & Yampolsky, R. (1991). Success for All: Effects on language minority students. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1991). Success for All at Buckingham Elementary: Second year evaluation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Additional source:
Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Success for All: Multi-year effects of a schoolwide elementary restructuring program. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. (Study: Worchester County, MD)

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1994, April). Lee Conmigo: Effects of Success for All in bilingual first grades. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1998). Success for All/Éxito Para Todos—Effects on the reading achievement of students acquiring English (Report No. 19). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423327) This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Effects of bilingual and English as a second language adaptations of Success for All on the reading achievement of students acquiring English. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 4(4), 393–416. (Study: Philadelphia) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Additional sources:
Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Success for All: Multi-year effects of a schoolwide elementary restructuring program. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. (Study: Philadelphia, PA)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All: Evaluations of national replications (Report No. 43). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1994). Implementing Success for All in the Philadelphia Public Schools: Final report to the Pew Foundation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 1(1), 41–76. (Study: Philadelphia, PA)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994). “Whenever and wherever we choose”: The replication of Success for All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639–647. (Study: Philadelphia, PA)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Philadelphia, PA)

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2006). Success for All/Roots & Wings: 2006 summary of research on achievement outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research and Reform in Education. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2006). Reducing the gap: Success for All and the achievement of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 389–400. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A., & Liang, C. (2002). Success for All in California: Gains on SAT-9 Reading and the Academic Performance Index. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Datnow, A. (2007). Research in, research out: The role of research in the development and scale-up of Success for All. In S. Fuhrman, D. Cohen, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N., Livermon, B. J., & Dolan, L. (1990). Success for All: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 255–278. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1994). Final report: 1993–1994 Success for All program in Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353. (Study: Memphis, TN) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353. (Study: Montgomery, AL) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional sources:
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. (1994, April). Using Success for All to restructure elementary schools: A tale of four cities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Montgomery, AL)

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Montgomery, AL)

Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., Johnson, B., & Casey, J. (1993). Final report: 1992–1993 Memphis, Tennessee SFA results. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Smith-Davis, S. L. (2008). Does Success for All impact reading achievement of students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(8-A), 3328. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

St. John, E. P., Manset, G., Chung, C., Simmons, A. B., & Musoba, G. D. (2000). Research-based reading interventions: The impact of Indiana’s Early Literacy Grant Program. Bloomington: Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center, Smith Center for Research in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447466) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

St. John, E. P., Manset, G., Chung, C., & Worthington, K. (2001). Assessing the rationales for educational reforms: A test of the professional development, comprehensive reform, and direct instruction hypotheses. Bloomington: Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center, Smith Center for Research in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458641) This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Sterbinsky, A., Ross, S. M., & Redfield, D. (2002). The effects of implementing comprehensive school reform models in 12 elementary schools: Year 3 study results. Charleston, SC: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Additional source:
Sterbinsky, A., Ross, S., & Redfield, D. (2003, April). Comprehensive school reform: A multi-site replicated experiment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Sterbinsky, A., Ross, S., & Redfield, D. (2006). Effects of comprehensive school reform on student achievement and school change: A longitudinal multi-site study. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 17(3), 367–397. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321–351. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Stringfield, S., Millsap, M. A., Herman, R., Yoder, N., Brigham, N., Nesselrodt, P., et al. (1997). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: Findings and policy implications of a longitudinal study. Retrieved from Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools website: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/Otherlinks/SpecialStrategies/index.htm. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Success for All Foundation. (2007). Independent reviews of Success for All. Retrieved from Success for All Foundation website: http://www.successforall.net/research/research.htm. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Thomas, R., & Lopes, J. (2007). Systematic reviews of learning by children with learning disabilities. Psicologia: Teoria, Investigacao e Pratica, 12(1), 3–12. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Tivnan, T., & Hemphill, L. (2005). Comparing four literacy reform models in high-poverty schools: Patterns of first-grade achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 419–441. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Urdegar, S. M. (2000). Evaluation of the Success for All program 1998–99. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Office of Evaluation and Research. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Urdegar, S. M. (1998). Evaluation of the Success for All program 1997–98. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade Public Schools, Office of Educational Evaluation.

Veals, C. J. (2002). The impact of the Success for All reading program on the reading performance of third grade students in two southwest Mississippi schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(04), 1291A. (UMI No. 3049586) This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Wang, L. W., & Ross, S. M. (1999). Results for Success for All program: Alhambra School District. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Wang, L. W., & Ross, S. M. (2003). Comparisons between elementary school programs on reading performance: Albuquerque Public Schools. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Weaver, L. M. (2005). An investigation of the Success for All reading program in three Mississippi schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(04A), 166–1310. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Wells, L. R. (2000). An investigation of the Success for All reading program at two Mississippi elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(04), 1342A. (UMI No. 9970370) This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Top