Evaluation of elementary school school-wide programs: Clover Park School District, year 1: 1996-97.
Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., & McNelis, M. (1997). Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
-
examining252Students, grade1
Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2017
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Additional source not reviewed (View primary source).
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2009
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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 Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
18.35 |
15.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Durrell Oral Reading subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
- 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
Washington
Study Details
Setting
The analysis sample included six elementary schools in Clover Park, Washington.
Study sample
The study compared whole-school improvement programs, Success for All ®, Accelerated Schools, and locally developed programs, in 19 schools. Schools were divided into four groups based on the similarity of several school characteristics, including enrollment, percentage of minority students, percentage of students eligible for free/reducedprice lunch, and initial academic performance. The WWC focused on only one group, “cluster 2A,” the third highest with respect to socioeconomic status, which included three SFA ® schools and three Accelerated Schools, with a total number of 252 first-grade students (148 students who attended SFA ® schools, 104 students who attended Accelerated Schools). The study included data that reflected students’ outcomes after one year of program implementation. In the overall sample, the percentage of minority students in three intervention schools was between 47% and 63%. In the three comparison schools, the range was between 42% and 54%. The percentage of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch varied from 63% to 66% in intervention schools, and from 66% to 71% in comparison schools.
Intervention Group
Intervention students received the typical SFA ® program, including the SFA ® reading curriculum, tutoring for students in grades 1–3, quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers.
Comparison Group
Accelerated Schools is a comprehensive school reform program that is designed to close the achievement gap between at-risk and not at-risk children. The program redesigns and integrates curricular, instructional, and organizational practices so that they provide enrichment for at-risk students.
Outcome descriptions
Three subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test were administered: Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension. The Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty Oral Reading subtest was also used (see Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
No information on training for the specific teachers in this study was provided.
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.
-
Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., McNelis, M., & Rakow, J. (1998). Evaluation of elementary school school-wide programs: Clover Park School District year 2: 1997–98. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
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).