WWC review of this study

Longitudinal study of student literacy achievement in different Title I school-wide programs in Fort Wayne Community Schools Year 2: First grade results.

Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    288
     Students
    , grades
    K-2

Reviewed: March 2017

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
288 students

12.25

10.39

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
288 students

32.14

31.32

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
79 students

10.11

7.53

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
79 students

27.10

25.73

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
288 students

16.09

15.44

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
79 students

12.29

11.17

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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. Business as usual

2 Years

Full sample;
288 students

5.35

4.74

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
79 students

4.14

3.18

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Indiana
  • Race
    Other or unknown
    100%

Setting

The study took place in seven Title I elementary schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Study sample

This study examined the effects of SFA® in two Title I schools. Five Title I schools that were implementing locally developed schoolwide programs were used as a comparison group. The study was conducted in fall 1996 through spring 1998 and reports on first-grade outcomes of students who were in kindergarten at the start of the study. The analysis sample included 288 students: 83 students in the SFA® schools and 205 students in comparison schools. The student-level analysis sample demonstrated equivalence on the PPVT. School populations ranged between 31% and 50% minority students; between 62% and 81% of students received free or reduced-price lunch. The study also reported on an additional intervention school that supplemented SFA® with another branded intervention (Reading Recovery), but results from this portion of the study are ineligible for review.

Intervention Group

Intervention students received the typical SFA® curriculum, including the Reading Roots reading curriculum in grade 1 and the Reading Wings reading curriculum in grade 2, one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving students by certified teacher tutors, quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers.

Comparison Group

The five comparison schools implemented locally developed schoolwide programs. The schools were comparable with SFA® schools on pretest PPVT measures, free or reduced-price lunch status, and ethnicity. Four out of the five local school programs incorporated components of other branded programs, including Reading Recovery, Accelerated Reader, Four-Block, and STAR. These curricula place considerable emphasis on reading, use of basal readers, and multifaceted reading activities.

Support for implementation

A full-time facilitator worked with staff to ensure fidelity of implementation in the intervention schools. No information on training for the specific teachers was provided in this study.

Reviewed: October 2012



Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

Reviewed: August 2009

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten;
288 students

12.25

10.40

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten;
288 students

32.14

31.30

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten;
288 students

16.09

15.40

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Durrell Oral Reading subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten;
288 students

5.35

4.70

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Indiana

Setting

The analysis sample included seven Title I elementary schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Study sample

This study examines the effects of SFA ® in two Title I schools by comparing them with five other Title I schools that were implementing locally developed schoolwide programs. The study did not report on the initial sample size, but 288 students in kindergarten (83 students in the SFA ® schools, 205 students at comparison schools) were included in the final analysis sample, and the post-attrition intervention and comparison samples were equivalent on the achievement pretest measure (PPVT). The study included data that reflected students’ outcomes after two years of program implementation. School populations ranged between 31% and 50% minority enrollment; between 62% and 81% of students received free or reduced-price lunch.

Intervention Group

Intervention students received the typical SFA ® curriculum, including the Reading Roots reading curriculum in grade 1 and the Reading Wings reading curriculum in grade 2; one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving students by certified teacher tutors, quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers.

Comparison Group

The five comparison schools implemented locally developed schoolwide programs. The schools were comparable with SFA ® schools on pretest PPVT measures, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. Four out of the five local school programs incorporated components of other branded programs, including Reading Recovery, Accelerated Reader, Four-Block, and STAR. These curricula place considerable emphasis on reading, use of basal readers, and multifaceted reading activities.

Outcome descriptions

Three subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test were administered: Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension. The study presented a combined measure of Word Identification and Word Attack. 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 was provided in this study.

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.

  • Casey, J., Smith, L. J., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Final report: 1993–1994 Success for All program in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Johnson, B. (1993). Final Report: 1992–93 Success for All program in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1995). Final report: 1994–1995 Success for All Program in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. (1994, April). Using “Success For All” to restructure elementary schools: A tale of four cities [Ft. Wayne, IN]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement [Ft. Wayne, IN]. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353.

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994, April). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of systemic school-by-school reform in seven districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (Study: Ft. Wayne, IN).

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(1), 41-76. (Study: Ft. Wayne, IN).

  • Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., Faulks, A., Casey, J., Shapiro, M., & Johnson, B. (1993). 1991–1992 Ft. Wayne, Indiana Success for All results. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top