Scaling up the Success for All: Model of School Reform. Final Report from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Evaluation
Quint, Janet; Zhu, Pei; Balu, Rekha; Rappaport, Shelley; DeLaurentis, Micah (2015). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED579089
-
examining37Schools, gradesK-4
Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized control trial with cluster level inferences and low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Success for All®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
15.52 |
14.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
40.00 |
39.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
46.96 |
46.15 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1;
|
12.36 |
10.51 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K;
|
5.74 |
5.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1;
|
29.49 |
28.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1;
|
30.34 |
29.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K;
|
19.67 |
19.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
21.03 |
20.88 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1;
|
14.69 |
14.57 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Northeast, South, West
-
Race Black 23% Other or unknown 64% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 62% Not Hispanic or Latino 38%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in five districts in four states in the western, southern, and northeastern United States. Most districts were located in mid-size to large cities.
Study sample
The study used a cluster randomized controlled trial design. Thirty-seven schools that met the study eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to intervention or comparison groups in spring 2011 after blocking by school district. To be eligible to participate in the study, schools were required to serve grades K–5, have at least 40% of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and be willing to participate in the study and support program implementation. The program was implemented for all students in the schools starting in fall 2011. The authors used three samples to evaluate the effectiveness of SFA®, which they refer to as the main sample, the spring sample, and the auxiliary sample. The main sample focused on students who were present in schools at the time of baseline and outcome assessments. The spring sample included all students who had at least one valid score on the end-of-year outcomes. The auxiliary sample consisted of students who were present in grades 3, 4, or 5 in the study schools during program implementation years. All three samples may include students who moved into the study schools after random assignment. For the effectiveness ratings, the WWC focused on third-year findings from the sample of students who had at least one valid score on the end-of-year outcomes (referred to as the spring sample in the study). The third-year analyses focused on second-grade students who were in kindergarten when implementation began. This cohort included 1,557 students in 19 SFA® schools and 1,350 students in 18 comparison schools. Across all study schools, 57% of the population received free or reduced-price lunch, 62% of students were Hispanic, 23% were Black, and 14% were White. Males made up 52% of the overall school sample.
Intervention Group
Intervention students received features of the full SFA® program, including the SFA® reading curriculum that is the focus of this intervention report, tutoring for students in grades 1–3, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers. Some other features of the full SFA® program, such as regular tutoring for struggling students, periodic testing and regrouping, and support for families, were not provided to all students in all schools. The study relied on local district coaches rather than coaches employed by SFA®. The SFA® model calls for a 90-minute reading block each day, and most schools adhered to this. Schools began using the program for the first time at the beginning of the first study year, and in general improved their implementation over the course of the study based on the authors’ monitoring.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition included schools that implemented standard reading programs from publishers such as Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Scott Foresman. During the 3-year study period, most comparison schools continued to use the same curriculum, while others switched from one common program to another.
Support for implementation
Each school implementing SFA® appointed a facilitator who oversaw the implementation of the program. Principals and other school leaders attended a week-long conference the summer before implementation, in which they were introduced to the various parts of the programs. SFA® coordinators visited the schools for 4 days before the beginning of the school year. One day of programming focused on principals and school leaders, the second day on all teachers, and the third and fourth days on reading teachers. During the school year, SFA® coaches visited the schools implementing the program to provide additional support. This was focused primarily on assisting principals and other leaders in implementing program features, but also included classroom visits and feedback on lessons.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Quint, Janet; Zhu, Pei; Doolittle, Fred. (2012). Understanding Variation in Implementation of SFA in the i3 Scale-Up Project. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
-
Quint, Janet C.; Balu, Rekha; DeLaurentis, Micah; Rappaport, Shelley; Smith, Thomas J.; Zhu, Pei. (2013). The Success for All Model of School Reform: Early Findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Scale-Up. MDRC.
-
Quint, Janet C.; Balu, Rekha; DeLaurentis, Micah; Rappaport, Shelley; Smith, Thomas J.; Zhu, Pei. (2014). The Success for All Model of School Reform: Interim Findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Scale-Up. MDRC.
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2017
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Success for All®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
16.41 |
15.39 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
41.19 |
40.56 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
21.58 |
21.44 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2) |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
49.45 |
48.34 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
24% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Northeast, South, West
-
Race Asian 2% Black 18% White 12% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 66% Not Hispanic or Latino 34%
Study Details
Setting
The study sample consisted of schools from five school districts in four states. The assignment sample included 37 K-5 schools, 19 of which were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 18 of which were randomly assigned to the comparison group. The primary student sample included 854 students in the intervention group and 781 students in the comparison group. This study included schools in the West, Northeast, and South regions of the United States.
Study sample
In the intervention group: 87.5% students in poverty; 12.4% White; 18.9% Black, 65.8% Hispanic; 1.3% Asian; 1.6% Other; 49% male; 26.4% ELL; and 5.9% special education. In the comparison group: 88.5% students in poverty; 12.6% White; 17.8% Black, 66.9% Hispanic; .09% Asian; 1.4% Other; 48.9% male; 20.6% ELL; and 6.4% special education. The average age of students in the intervention and comparison groups at the beginning of the study was 5.5 years.
Intervention Group
Success for All has three levels: The KinderCorner for kindergarten; Reading Roots for beginning readers, typically first graders; and Reading Wings, typically for second graders and up. The Success for All model includes a full-time facilitator at the school level and requires principal involvement. The program developer provides training, coaching, a structured curriculum emphasizing phonics and comprehension, data tracking, and a computerized tutoring system. The program elements include: 1) structured reading instruction in a 90 minute block, 2) small class size, 3) cross-grade grouping by reading level, 4) cooperative learning and celebrations of student gains in small groups, classes, and schools; 5) rapid instructional pacing, 6) tutoring and support interventions for struggling readers; 7) use of engaging instructional media and frequent student assessments of student learning. In the intervention group, the average length of the reading block was 88.6 minutes. The average class size in reading was 18.7. In the intervention group, 61.5% of principals reported that "students in the same reading class are divided into smaller groups." All principals in the intervention group reported that "students in the same grade are grouped into different reading classes by ability level," and "students who are in different grades, but at the same ability level, are sometimes grouped together in the same reading class." In the intervention group, 99% of teachers reported students work in pairs or small groups, almost daily.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition schools constituted a "business as usual" condition.
Support for implementation
The Success for All model includes a full-time facilitator at the school level and requires principal involvement. The program developer provides training, coaching, a structured curriculum emphasizing phonics and comprehension, data tracking, and a computerized tutoring system. School strategies to address non-instructional issues that affect learning included solutions teams and an emphasis on continuous improvement. School staff received initial training by the SFA foundation, and then received ongoing professional development throughout the year. Coaches visited classrooms to observe, then met with the principal. The coaches supported the principal and facilitator to use data. Appendix E details the cost analysis, which showed that the cost per year is higher during the first two years of the program and tapers after that. Based on an analysis of District D, SFA per-student costs were about $192 higher than comparison group reading program, per student in year 3. See the report for extensive detail on cost analysis.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).