|
|
One hundred ten studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of SFA®. One study (Borman, Slavin, Cheung, Chamberlain, Madden, & Chambers, 2006) is a randomized controlled trial that meets 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) are quasi-experimental designs that meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 103 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility 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.6 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).
Borman et al. (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 programs. 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.
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.7 SFA® students were compared with
students who did not use the SFA® program. The WWC based
effectiveness ratings on findings for the three cohorts that were
exposed to SFA® for two, three, or four years.
Madden et al. (1993) evaluated the effects of SFA® in
Baltimore City elementary schools. The study investigated the
effects of two versions of the SFA® program: full implementation
and dropout prevention. Although these versions varied in their
implementation of the whole-school reform model, the reading
curricula are essentially the same at all schools, with each
school receiving the same training, coaching support, and materials.
Ratings presented in this report are not disaggregated by
the variations in implementation of whole-school reforms.8 The
WWC based effectiveness ratings on the findings for students at
the end of three years of implementation for the alphabetics and
general reading achievement domains.
Ross, Alberg, and McNelis (1997) included first-grade students
from 19 elementary schools implementing alternative schoolwide
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 252 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 et al. (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 et al. (1993) evaluated SFA® in two elementary schools in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, by comparing them with similar students in two matched comparison schools who 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.
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 meet WWC evidence
standards with or without reservations.9
The WWC considers the extent of evidence for SFA® to be medium to large for alphabetics, comprehension, and general reading achievement. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed fluency.
6 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).
7 The WWC Beginning Reading topic focuses only on students learning to read in English (see Beginning Reading Protocol).
8 A previous version of this report separated the two implementations. It was later determined that both used the same reading curriculum. This updated
report does not distinguish between the two implementations.
9 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.
|Institute of Education Sciences
