The Impact of One Semester of Future Forward on Reading Achievement and School Attendance
Curtis J. Jones; Dongmei Li (2023). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED629657
-
examining122Students, gradesK-3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Future Forward Literacy Program)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Early Literacy |
Future Forward Literacy Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.14 |
-0.15 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
STAR Early Literacy |
Future Forward Literacy Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students of color;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
DIBELS Composite |
Future Forward Literacy Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students of color; Schools in Alabama only;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
STAR Early Literacy |
Future Forward Literacy Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
DIBELS Composite |
Future Forward Literacy Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White students; Schools in Alabama only;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Future Forward Literacy Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.80 |
91.80 |
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.
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Rural, Town, 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
Alabama, Wisconsin
-
Race Black 37% Other or unknown 9% White 54% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 88% No FRPL 12%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in three elementary schools, one in Wisconsin and two in Alabama.
Study sample
Eligible study participants were students in grades K-3 who did not have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and were not English learners. This study randomly assigned 65 students to the Future Forward intervention group and 62 students to the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Future Forward (previously known as SPARK) combines one-on-one tutoring in literacy with family engagement. The tutoring consists of phonics-based activities, use of graphic organizers to build comprehension skills, and a tutor read-aloud. Students were pulled out of non-core classes during the school day to receive 30-minute tutoring sessions for an average of 2.6 times per week and 25.5 times in total over the course of one semester. Each tutor worked with one to six students and stayed with the same students during the semester. Tutors included parents of students in the school, local college students, and former teachers. Each school also had a family engagement coordinator who led engagement efforts with participating students' families, such as sending home a monthly newsletter, holding monthly family events, sending books home to build a home library, and conducting home visits. Families were contacted an average of 6.2 times over the course of the semester. Family engagement coordinators included community members and parents of children attending the school.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business as usual reading instruction within their classrooms and attended their usual non-core classes.
Support for implementation
Tutors received support through a combination of online and on-the-job training focused on literacy strategies, lesson planning, and assessment administration. Instructional coordinators, typically certified teachers, were trained in program implementation and tutor supervision, including conducting structured observations. These coordinators provided monthly formal feedback to tutors and organized collaboration with school staff. Family engagement coordinators received varying amounts of training on topics such as Future Forward tutoring, facilitating and documenting communications, conducting family events, conducting home visits, building trust, and navigating cultural differences.
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.
-
Curtis J. Jones, Marlo Reeves & Dongmei Li. (2025). The Impact of One Semester of Future Forward on Reading Achievement and School Attendance. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR).
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).