The Success for All Model of School Reform: Interim Findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Scale-Up
Quint, Janet C.; Balu, Rekha; DeLaurentis, Micah; Rappaport, Shelley; Smith, Thomas J.; Zhu, Pei (2014). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED546642
-
examining37Schools, gradesK-1
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for Success for All®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
12.78 |
10.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Letter-word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
31.09 |
30.27 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
15.08 |
14.92 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.67 |
29.72 |
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.
-
Male: 52% -
- 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
Northeast, South, West
-
Race Black 23% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 62%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in five districts in four states in the Western, Southern, and Northeastern U.S. Most districts were located in large to mid-size cities. Schools were required to serve grades K-5, have at least 40% of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and be willing to participate in the study and support program implementation.
Study sample
56.8% of the study sample received free or reduced-price lunch. 13.8% of students were White, 22.6% were Black, and 61.8% were Hispanic. Males made up 51.6% of the sample.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition participated in Success for All for 2 school years (Kindergarten and first grade) when outcomes were measured. Schools began using the program for the first time at the beginning of the first study year, and in general improved their implementation over the course of the study. Success for All calls for a 90-minute reading block each day, which appeared to have been adhered to in most (if not all) schools. Other aspects, such as regular tutoring for struggling students, periodic testing and regrouping, and support for families, were applied less consistently but appeared in some form in most schools.
Comparison Group
Before the study both intervention and comparison schools implemented commonly-used programs from well-known publishers such as Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Scott Foresman. During the study period, most comparison schools continued to use the same curriculum as before the study began, while the others switched from one common program to another.
Support for implementation
Each school implementing Success for All appointed a facilitator who oversaw the implementation of the program. Principals and other school leaders attended a week-long conference the summer before implementation, in which they were introduced to the various parts of the programs. SFA coordinators visited the schools for 4 days before the beginning of the school year. One day of programming focused on principals and school leaders, the second day on all teachers, and the third and fourth days on reading teachers. During the school year SFA coaches visited the schools implementing the program to provide additional support. This was focused primarily on assisting principals and other leaders in implementing program features, but also included classroom visits and feedback on lessons.
Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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.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).