The Results of a Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of the Spark Literacy Program: An Innovative Approach That Pairs One-on-One Tutoring with Family Engagement
Jones, Curtis J.; Christian, Michael (2021). Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, v26 n3 p185-209. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1306418
-
examining378Students, gradesK-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Fluency |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
179.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
51.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Fluency |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
176.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
418.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
287.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
358.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
481.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
508.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
N/A |
66.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Students in the lower half of the literacy achievement distribution at baseline;
|
N/A |
233.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Students in the lower half of the literacy achievement distribution at baseline;
|
N/A |
347.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Fluency |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: Kindergarten;
|
N/A |
174.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Reading Fluency |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
N/A |
188.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Students in the lower half of the literacy achievement distribution at baseline;
|
N/A |
304.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absences |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
28.80 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Absences |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: Kindergarten;
|
N/A |
32.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Absences |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Students in the lower half of the literacy achievement distribution at baseline;
|
N/A |
20.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Absences |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Students in the lower half of the literacy achievement distribution at baseline;
|
N/A |
23.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Absences |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
18.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
29.50 |
-- |
-- | ||
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.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
Wisconsin
-
Race Black 76% Other or unknown 24% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 16% Not Hispanic or Latino 84% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 96% No FRPL 4%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that were academically struggling.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 576 K–2 students to the intervention group and comparison conditions.
Intervention Group
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK; later known as Future Forward) paired one-on-one tutoring in literacy and family engagement activities. The intervention pulled students from non-core classes for 30-minute sessions, up to 3 times a week, over two years. Each tutor worked with four to five students per year, and when possible, stayed with the same students across both years. Tutors were AmeriCorps members or pre-service teachers. The tutoring sessions followed a routine: (1) a familiar activity for review; (2) word play focused on foundational reading skills; (3) tutor-assisted reading of a book; (4) writing sentences connected to the lesson; (5) tutor reading aloud to the student. Family engagement activities led by a parent partner for the school included updating families on students' progress, supporting families in promoting literacy activities at home, helping families troubleshoot any school attendance issues, and home visits.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business as usual non-core classes.
Support for implementation
Tutors received a weeklong training before the beginning of the year. A certified teacher served as a manager at each school to oversee, monitor, and support the tutors. Parent partners received training on SPARK tutoring and program procedures and received scripts for home visits.
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.
-
Jones, Curtis J.; Christian, Michael; Rice, Andrew. (2016). The Results of a Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of the SPARK Literacy Program. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
-
Jones, C. J., Reeves, M., Li, D., & Gilman, L. (2021). What is the sustained impact of Future Forward on reading achievement, attendance, and special education placement five years after participation?. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. https://uwm.edu/sreed/wp-content/uploads/sites/502/2021/04/The-Sustained-Impact-of-Future-Forward.pdf.
-
Jones, C. J., Reeves, M., Li, D., and Gilman, L. (2023). What is the Sustained Impact of Future Forward on Reading Achievement, Attendance, and Special Education Placement 5 Years After Participation?. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, pp 1-20.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).