Evaluation of elementary school school-wide programs: Clover Park School District year 2: 1997–98.
Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., McNelis, M., & Rakow, J. (1998). Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
-
examining128Students, grades1-2
Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2017
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
2 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
23.62 |
23.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
2 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
51.94 |
52.95 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
1 Year |
Grade: 1;
|
18.35 |
15.86 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
1 Year |
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 |
2 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
27.43 |
29.65 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
1 Year |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
2 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
11.93 |
12.63 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Accelerated Schools |
1 Year |
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.
-
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
Washington
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 19 schools in Clover Park, Washington.
Study sample
The study compared whole-school improvement programs, including SFA®, Accelerated Schools, and locally developed programs, in 19 schools for students in grades 1–2. Schools were divided into four groups based on their similarity on several school characteristics, including enrollment, percentage of minority students, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and initial academic performance. Only one group (referred to as “cluster 2A” by the study authors), which was the third highest with respect to socioeconomic status, meets WWC group design standards. This group included three SFA® schools and two Accelerated Schools. The percentage of minority students in the three intervention schools was between 47% and 63%. In the comparison schools, the percentage of minority students ranged from 42% to 54%. The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch varied from 63% to 66% in intervention schools, and from 66% to 71% in comparison schools. For the effectiveness ratings, the WWC focused on findings from the sample of 128 second graders, who completed 2 years of the program. After 2 years, three SFA® schools with 86 students and two Accelerated Schools with 42 students remained in the analytic sample.
Intervention Group
Intervention students received the typical SFA® program, including the SFA® reading curriculum, tutoring for students in grades 1–2, 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 to improve the achievement of at-risk students.
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. (1997). Evaluation of elementary school school-wide programs: Clover Park School District, year 1: 1996-97. 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).