Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
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
-
examining1,342Students, gradesK-4
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for Success for All®)
- 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.
Findings
|
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;
|
5.54 |
2.25 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 3;
|
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;
|
25.25 |
21.54 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 2;
|
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;
|
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;
|
18.66 |
15.91 |
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. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 3;
|
17.01 |
13.25 |
No |
-- | |
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 2;
|
12.15 |
8.84 |
No |
-- | |
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 1;
|
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.
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
Maryland
Study Details
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.
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 Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 1, Cohort 1;
|
5.46 |
2.25 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2, Cohort 2;
|
8.63 |
5.21 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 3, Cohort 3;
|
10.77 |
7.02 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2, Cohort 2;
|
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;
|
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;
|
11.36 |
1.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
|
36.12 |
21.08 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
|
5.00 |
1.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
|
4.73 |
1.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
|
4.92 |
1.52 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
|
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;
|
6.15 |
2.62 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
|
19.19 |
15.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 3, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
|
7.85 |
4.02 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Word Attack |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
|
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;
|
8.11 |
4.49 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 3, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
|
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;
|
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;
|
5.92 |
3.49 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
|
14.32 |
11.78 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB) Letter-Word Identification |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
19.27 |
17.43 |
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. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 1;
|
16.44 |
10.48 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 2, Cohort 3;
|
8.16 |
5.89 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT) Comprehension |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
|
20.97 |
17.48 |
No |
|
||
|
Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) Total Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Grade: 4, Cohort 2;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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%;
|
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;
|
676.63 |
653.95 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Silent Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 1, Cohort 3;
|
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;
|
645.64 |
643.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Total Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 1, Cohort 3;
|
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%;
|
380.27 |
406.34 |
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. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 3, Cohort 3;
|
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;
|
677.49 |
660.86 |
No |
|
||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 1, Cohort 1;
|
5.59 |
4.26 |
No |
|
||
| 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;
|
7.20 |
2.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 3, lowest 25%, Cohort 3;
|
12.92 |
8.08 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2, lowest 25%, Cohort 2;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
1.42 |
1.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
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;
|
30.33 |
22.27 |
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
Maryland
-
Race Black 97% Other or unknown 3%
Study Details
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.
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.
-
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.
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).