Skip Navigation

What Works Clearinghouse

Search
Intervention: Success for All®

Research

Seventy-four studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of SFA®. One study (Borman, Slavin, Cheung, Chamberlain, Madden, & Chambers, 2006) was a randomized controlled trial that met WWC evidence standards. Six other studies (Dianda & Flaherty, 1995; Madden, Slavin, Karweit, Dolan, & Wasik, 1993; Ross, Alberg, & McNelis, 1997; Ross & Casey, 1998; Ross, McNelis, Lewis, & Loomis, 1998; and Smith, Ross, Faulks, Casey, Shapiro, & Johnson, 1993) were quasi-experimental designs that met WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining studies did not meet WWC evidence screens.

Some studies measured the impact of SFA® after a cohort of students was exposed to SFA® for one, two, and three years. To determine ratings, the WWC used results from the final year reported in a study for the overall domain rating, prioritizing the outcomes that reflected students’ exposure to the intervention for the longest period of time available. 4 The studies in this report reflect results after: (1) three years of exposure to SFA® (2 studies); (2) two years of exposure to SFA® (2 studies); and (3) one year of exposure to SFA® (3 studies).

Met evidence standards

  • Borman, Slavin, Cheung, Chamberlain, Madden, & Chambers (2006) was a cluster randomized controlled trial that examined the effects of SFA® on students in grades K–2 across 14 states. The study randomly assigned 41 schools to SFA® and the comparison conditions and presented findings on students who had completed one, two, or three years of the program compared with students who took part in their schools’ typical reading program. The WWC based effectiveness ratings on findings from the third-year longitudinal sample of 1,425 students who began the study in kindergarten in 18 intervention and 17 comparison schools.

Met evidence standards with reservations

  • Dianda and Flaherty (1995) studied the impact of SFA® on three different cohorts of students who started kindergarten in 1992, 1993, or 1994. Students were from six elementary schools in California. Students were grouped into four language categories; the WWC focuses only on the English-speaking group of 539 students for this review. 5 SFA® students were compared with students who did not use the SFA® program. The WWC based effectiveness ratings on findings for the three cohorts who were exposed to SFA® for two, three, or four years.
  • Madden, Slavin, Karweit, Dolan, & Wasik (1993) evaluated the effects of SFA® in Baltimore City elementary schools. The authors evaluated three different levels of implementation of the SFA® program: full implementation, curriculum only, and focus on dropout prevention. 6 The WWC focused on the full implementation portion of the study. Two schools that implemented the SFA® were compared with two matched comparison schools that received a traditional reading basal program. The WWC based effectiveness ratings on the findings for students at the end of three years of implementation for alphabetics and general reading achievement domains.
  • Ross, Alberg, and McNelis (1997) included first-grade students from 19 elementary schools implementing alternative school-wide programs in the Northwest. The 19 schools were formed into four clusters of similar schools. For this review, the WWC reported results from students in three SFA® schools who were compared with the students from three schools that implemented the Accelerated Schools program. This subsample consisted of “cluster 2A” schools, which were neither the most disadvantaged, nor the most affluent, schools in the sample. This WWC review focused on the findings for 425 students at the end of the second grade, who had received one year of the SFA® program.
  • Ross and Casey (1998) examined the effects of SFA® in three schools in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, by comparing them with five schools that implemented “locally developed programs. ” The WWC focused on students who started the program in kindergarten at two SFA® schools. The WWC based effectiveness ratings on the findings for 288 students at the end of first grade who received two years of SFA®.
  • Ross, McNelis, Lewis, & Loomis (1998) included 97 first-grade students from four elementary schools located in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two schools that implemented the SFA® were compared with two matched comparison schools that did not receive the intervention. The WWC based effectiveness ratings on findings at the end of the second grade after students received one year of SFA® implementation.
  • Smith, Ross, Faulks, Casey, Shapiro, & Johnson (1993) evaluated SFA® in two elementary schools in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, by comparing them with similar students in two matched comparison schools that did not receive SFA®. The WWC based effectiveness ratings on findings for 286 students spread across kindergarten and first grade who had received one year of SFA® implementation.

Extent of evidence

The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the What Works Clearinghouse Extent of Evidence Categorization Scheme). The extent of evidence takes into account the number of studies and the total sample size across the studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations. 7

The WWC considers the extent of evidence for SFA® to be medium to large for alphabetics, comprehension, and general reading achievement. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed fluency.

4 SFA® is designed to teach children to read at grade level by third grade and the third year of program implementation is regarded as the full “dose” of Success for All (Borman et al., 2006).
5 The WWC Beginning Reading topic focuses only on students learning to read in English (see Beginning Reading Protocol).
6 The curriculum only intervention is a particular version of the SFA® program that only uses the beginning reading curriculum rather than the whole school reform approach (Slavin et al., 1990). The curriculum only portion of the study included only one school in comparison condition and did not meet WWC evidence screens. The dropout prevention portion met evidence standards with reservations but was not considered in the intervention rating because it went beyond the standard delivery of the program. However, results are reported in Appendices A4.7–A4.9.
7 The Extent of Evidence Categorization was developed to tell readers how much evidence was used to determine the intervention rating, focusing on the number and size of studies. Additional factors associated with a related concept, external validity, such as the students’ demographics and the types of settings in which studies took place, are not taken into account for the categorization.

Top