WWC review of this study

Success for All: Longitudinal Effects of a Restructuring Program for Inner-City Elementary Schools.

Madden, Nancy A.; And Others (1993). American Educational Research Journal, v30 n1 p123-48. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ463408

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    1,342
     Students
    , grades
    PK-4

Reviewed: February 2018

At least one finding shows moderate evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1;
492 students

5.54

2.25

Yes

 
 
30
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 3;
410 students

10.91

7.02

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Letter-Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 2;
440 students

25.25

21.54

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 2;
440 students

8.79

5.21

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Letter-Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 3;
410 students

28.84

25.56

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Letter-Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1;
492 students

18.66

15.91

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Substantively important positive 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

1 Year

Grade: 3;
410 students

17.01

13.25

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 2;
440 students

12.15

8.84

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1;
492 students

5.70

4.26

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

    Maryland

Setting

This study includes first, second, and third grades in five elementary schools in the Baltimore school district.

Study sample

Ethnicity and percent free lunch are included for the whole schools, but not specifically of the study samples.

Intervention Group

Tutors meet with students in daily 20-minute sessions carved from a social studies period and also work during regular reading periods with students struggling to keep up with their groups. Students are grouped with others of similar ability. A 'family support team' provides additional services such as referrals to social services and parenting education, to offset issues preventing students from performing at their ability levels.

Comparison Group

The comparison schools used a traditional reading program based on the Macmillan 'Connections' reading series.

Support for implementation

At the beginning of the school year, teachers and tutors received 2 to 3 days of training. They were also given extensive teacher's manuals.

Reviewed: March 2017

At least one finding shows moderate evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 1, Cohort 1;
492 students

5.46

2.25

Yes

 
 
30
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2, Cohort 2;
440 students

8.63

5.21

Yes

 
 
23
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 3, Cohort 3;
410 students

10.77

7.02

Yes

 
 
23
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2, Cohort 2;
440 students

25.09

21.54

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 3, Cohort 3;
410 students

28.69

25.56

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
104 students

11.36

1.80

Yes

 
 
44

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
104 students

36.12

21.08

Yes

 
 
40

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
78 students

5.00

1.44

Yes

 
 
39

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
112 students

4.73

1.48

Yes

 
 
36

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
126 students

4.92

1.52

Yes

 
 
31

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
118 students

3.46

0.97

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Cohort 2;
338 students

6.15

2.62

Yes

 
 
29

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
112 students

19.19

15.50

Yes

 
 
26

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 3, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
104 students

7.85

4.02

Yes

 
 
26

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
86 students

3.06

1.15

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, Cohort 3;
320 students

8.11

4.49

Yes

 
 
25

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 3, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
104 students

25.06

21.31

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
78 students

19.84

17.02

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, Cohort 3;
584 students

5.92

3.49

Yes

 
 
20

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
118 students

14.32

11.78

Yes

 
 
18

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
86 students

13.94

12.18

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, Cohort 3;
320 students

24.08

21.03

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Cohort 2;
338 students

18.23

16.51

No

--

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, Cohort 3;
584 students

19.27

17.43

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive 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

4 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
104 students

16.44

10.48

Yes

 
 
29
 

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, Cohort 3;
320 students

8.16

5.89

Yes

 
 
15
 

Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT) Comprehension

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
306 students

20.97

17.48

No

 
 
14

Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) Total Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
254 students

661.30

649.00

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Cohort 2;
338 students

4.90

2.67

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
86 students

1.57

0.61

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
78 students

5.08

3.18

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, Cohort 3, lowest 25%;
118 students

1.57

0.55

No

--

Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
254 students

676.63

653.95

Yes

 
 
14

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, Cohort 3;
584 students

4.01

3.28

No

--

Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading Vocabulary subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
255 students

645.64

643.61

No

--

California Achievement Test (CAT): Total Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, Cohort 3;
584 students

479.51

481.76

No

--

California Achievement Test (CAT): Total Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, Cohort 3, lowest 25%;
118 students

380.27

406.34

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Substantively important positive 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

3 Years

Grade: 3, Cohort 3;
410 students

16.66

13.25

No

--

Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) Total Language

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
255 students

677.49

660.86

No

 
 
14

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 1, Cohort 1;
492 students

5.59

4.26

No

 
 
11
Show Supplemental Findings

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
104 students

7.20

2.44

Yes

 
 
38

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 3, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
104 students

12.92

8.08

Yes

 
 
30

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
112 students

6.04

3.32

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
126 students

4.35

1.81

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2, Cohort 2;
440 students

11.99

8.84

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
78 students

6.82

4.72

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 2, Cohort 3;
320 students

11.85

8.60

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
118 students

3.02

1.90

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, Cohort 2;
338 students

6.01

4.84

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Grade: 1, Cohort 3;
584 students

5.32

4.78

No

--

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
86 students

1.42

1.48

No

--
Reading Fluency outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT) Passage subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

5 Years

Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
306 students

30.33

22.27

No

 
 
18


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

    Maryland
  • Race
    Black
    97%
    Other or unknown
    3%

Setting

The analysis sample included 10 elementary schools in Baltimore, Maryland.

Study sample

This study examined the effects of SFA® in the Baltimore City public elementary schools by contrasting eight intervention schools with six comparison schools. Each comparison school was matched with an intervention school based on the percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch and prior achievement level. Students were then individually matched based on a standardized test administered by the school district. The study investigated the effects of three versions of the SFA® program: full implementation, dropout prevention, and curriculum only. SFA® schools introduced the reading program during the 1988–89 school year. Over the course of 5 years, the study tracked outcomes for students enrolled in grades pre-K–4. This report emphasizes findings from three cohorts of students who started SFA® in prekindergarten (Cohort 1), kindergarten (Cohort 2), and first grade (Cohort 3). To determine the effectiveness ratings, the WWC focused on results measured after the highest exposure to SFA® among the analytic samples that were found to be equivalent at baseline and met WWC group design standards. In particular, this report includes findings for students after 3 years of exposure to SFA® in the alphabetics domain, and up to 5 years of exposure in other outcome domains. The number of students included in the analytic samples that contribute to the effectiveness rating varied by cohort, outcome domain, and period of exposure to the intervention: Cohort 1: 246 students in SFA® schools and 246 students in comparison schools were followed from prekindergarten to first grade in the alphabetics and general reading achievement domains, and 48 SFA® and 56 comparison students were followed to second grade in the comprehension domain; Cohort 2: 220 students in SFA® schools and 220 students in comparison schools were followed from kindergarten to second grade in the alphabetics domain, and 151 SFA® and 156 comparison students were followed to fourth grade in the reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement domains; and Cohort 3: 205 students in SFA® schools and 205 students in comparison schools were followed from first grade to third grade in the alphabetics and general reading achievement domains, and 160 SFA® and 160 comparison students were followed to second grade in the comprehension domain. The largest combined analytic sample across cohorts that contributed findings to the effectiveness rating in an outcome domain included 671 students in five SFA® schools and 671 students in five comparison schools. The five SFA® schools served between 97–100% of African-American students, and 83–98% of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. In comparison schools, at least 75% of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The comparison schools received funding under federal programs for low-achieving disadvantaged students.

Intervention Group

The study included two variants of the SFA® program, which the study authors referred to as full implementation (two schools) and dropout prevention (three schools). Intervention students in the full implementation version 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 full-time facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers. Intervention schools in the dropout prevention version had a half-time facilitator and a reduced number of tutors and family support staff. Chapter I funds supported a dropout prevention program. Although the two program variants provided different schoolwide components, the components of the SFA® reading curricula were similar, with each school receiving the same training, coaching support, and materials.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition included schools that implemented a traditional reading program built around the Macmillan Connections basal series. Comparison schools largely used their Chapter I funds to reduce first- through third-grade class sizes and to provide low-achieving students with traditional group-based pullout services.

Support for implementation

The teachers and tutors were regular certified teachers. They received detailed teacher’s manuals supplemented by 2 to 3 days of in-service training at the beginning of the school year. For teachers of grades 1–3 and for reading tutors, these training sessions focused on the implementation of the reading program. Preschool and kindergarten teachers and teachers aides were trained in the use of the thematic units and other aspects of the preschool and kindergarten models. School facilitators also organized information sessions to allow teachers to share problems and solutions, suggest changes, and discuss the progress of individual children.

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.

  • Borman, G. D., & Hewes, G. M. (2002). The long-term effects and cost effectiveness of Success for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 243-266.

  • Madden, Nancy A.; And Others. (1991). Success for All: Multi-Year Effects of a Schoolwide Elementary Restructuring Program. Report No. 18.

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All in the Baltimore City Public Schools: Year 6 report. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research in Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All in the Baltimore City Public Schools: Year 5 report. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1990). Success for All: Second year report. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Public Education Institute and Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Reviewed: August 2009

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Prekindergarten;
492 students

5.46

2.25

Yes

 
 
30
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten;
440 students

8.63

5.21

Yes

 
 
23
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
410 students

10.77

7.02

Yes

 
 
23
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Letter-Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten;
440 students

25.09

21.54

Yes

 
 
20
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Letter-Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
410 students

28.69

25.56

Yes

 
 
18
 

Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Letter-Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Prekindergarten;
492 students

18.53

15.91

Yes

 
 
17
 
Reading achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive 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;
440 students

11.99

8.84

Yes

 
 
18
 

Durrell Oral Reading subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
410 students

16.66

13.25

Yes

 
 
18
 

Durrell Oral Reading subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Prekindergarten;
492 students

5.59

4.26

Yes

 
 
11
 


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

    Maryland
  • Race
    Black
    97%

Setting

The analysis sample included 10 elementary schools in Baltimore, Maryland.

Study sample

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. Within each comparison school, one-third of the students were randomly selected for testing purposes. The study focused on cohorts of students who started SFA ® in prekindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade and received the intervention for multiple years. To determine the effectiveness ratings, the WWC focused on the latest term results available. The third-year analytic sample included 671 students within five SFA ® schools and 671 students within five comparison schools spread across three grade levels. African-American students constituted 97% to 100% of students in five intervention schools, with 83% to 98% of students qualified for free lunch. In comparison (Chapter 1) schools, at least 75% of students qualified for free lunch.

Intervention Group

Intervention students in the full implementation version 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. Intervention students in the dropout prevention version had a reduced number of tutors and family support staff. Chapter 1 monies supported the dropout prevention program.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition included schools that implemented a traditional reading program built around Macmillan Connections basal series. Each comparison school was matched with an intervention school based on the percentage of students getting free or reduced-price lunch and historical achievement level. Students were then individually matched on a standardized test given by the school district. Pretest scores on WRMT Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, and Durrell Oral Reading subtests served as covariates in analyses.

Outcome descriptions

Two subtests of the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery were administered: Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack. Additional measures included Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty Silent Reading and Oral Reading subtests and the California Achievement Test (CAT) Total Reading (see Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).

Support for implementation

The teachers and tutors were regular certified teachers. They received detailed teacher’s manuals supplemented by two to three days of in-service at the beginning of the school year. For teachers of grades 1–3 and for reading tutors, these training sessions focused on the implementation of the reading program. Preschool and kindergarten teachers and aids were trained in the use of the thematic units, and other aspects of the preschool and kindergarten models. School facilitators also organized many information sessions to allow teachers to share problems and solutions, suggest changes, and discuss individual children.

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.

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1990). Success for All: Second year report. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Public Education Institute and Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

  • Borman, G. D., & Hewes, G. M. (2002). The long-term effects and cost effectiveness of Success for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 243-266.

  • 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: Baltimore, MD).

  • Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Success for All: Multi-year effects of a schoolwide elementary restructuring program. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. (Study: Baltimore, MD).

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All in the Baltimore City Public Schools: Year 6 report. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research in Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All in the Baltimore City Public Schools: Year 5 report. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., Wasik, B. A., Ross, S. M., & Smith, L. J. (1994). “Whenever and wherever we choose”: The replication of Success for All. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 639–647. (Study: Baltimore, MD).

  • 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: Baltimore, MD).

 

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