The Results of a Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of the SPARK Literacy Program
Jones, Curtis J.; Christian, Michael; Rice, Andrew (2016). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567484
-
examining389Students, gradesK-2
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Grant Competition (findings for SPARK literacy model)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
56.00 |
51.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who were low-achieving at baseline;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Achievement |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who were low-achieving at baseline;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
396.60 |
366.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
321.40 |
294.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
467.50 |
427.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
500.60 |
465.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Achievement |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
180.80 |
179.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Renaissance Star Reading |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
525.00 |
486.30 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
School Attendance |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.60 |
28.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
School Attendance |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
15.90 |
17.95 |
No |
-- | ||
|
School Attendance |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
19.09 |
21.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
School Attendance |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
14.41 |
15.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
School Attendance |
SPARK literacy model vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
18.76 |
19.29 |
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: 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%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS). Participants included kindergarten, first-, and second-grade students from seven MPS schools.
Study sample
The sample was evenly divided between male and female students. The majority of the participants were African American (76%). Of the remaining students, 16 percent identified their ethnicity as Hispanic. Almost all students (96%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. About 6 percent of participants had individual education plans (IEPs) for a speech or language disability. Students who had received a reading-related IEP or were English language learners were ineligible to participate in the evaluation.
Intervention Group
Future Forward (previously known as SPARK) is a 2-year literacy and family engagement program for students in the early grades that leverages a school–community–family partnership approach. The tutoring component is loosely based on the Reading Recovery program, which includes in-school tutoring with lesson plans and assessments that are analyzed by the students' teachers. Students are pulled out of non-core classes during the school day for 30-minute tutoring sessions, up to three times per week. The second component engages families in children's literacy development by having a parent partner work with each student’s family to bridge the divide between school and home. Literacy concepts are translated, families are educated about a variety of literacy activities, and literacy practices already happening in the home are validated. Parent partners stay connected with families through a monthly newsletter, monthly family events at each site, phone calls, and emails. To connect with families in their own space and learn about literacy activities already taking place in the home, parent partners conduct home visits for all students twice during the summer between their first and second year of participation and as needed during the school year.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual reading instruction provided by the school district.
Support for implementation
Each site had a program manager, who was also a certified teacher, to oversee and support the tutors. Tutors participated in a series of training sessions at the beginning of the school year, and other individualized training sessions were developed during the year as needed. The tutors were observed during tutoring sessions and were provided with feedback following the observations.
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, 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.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: K;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Assessment |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Assessment |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Assessment |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: K;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Assessment |
Spheres of Proud Achievement in Reading for Kids (SPARK) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 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 75% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 16% Not Hispanic or Latino 84%
Study Details
Setting
The setting of the study is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) students were in kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades. There were students from seven schools in the intervention and comparison conditions.
Study sample
In the analytic sample (n=389), 96% of the intervention group and 95% of the comparison group was free or reduced price lunch eligible. About half (49.5%) of the comparison group was female, and 51.3% of the intervention group was female. Approximately 3/4 of the sample were Black, 77% of the comparison group and 75% of the intervention group. 15% of the intervention group was Latino, and 17% of the comparison group was Latino, and the rest were designated as "other."
Intervention Group
The SPARK Program included tutoring and family engagement. The tutoring was provided to students for 30 minutes, up to 3 times per week, for 2 years. A certified teacher oversees the tutoring, and a set lesson plan template is used by the tutors and students for each session. All students are assessed with PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening) to determine their needs and create individual lesson plans. The after-school program is based on the KidzLit program, that is built around multicultural books and follows a five part process. Finally, the family engagement component has a parent partner who works with each participating student's family, to bridge the divide between school and home.
Comparison Group
The nature of the comparison group condition was not specified, but it is inferred that the classroom activities would be business-as-usual, and these students would not have access to the intervention group services (tutoring of the same intensity, duration, and instructors), after-school programs, and family engagement support.
Support for implementation
The support provided for the SPARK intervention and associated randomized controlled trial study comes from a U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation (i3) grant award. SPARK had support for program implementation by the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Public Schools. In SPARK, tutoring was planned and implemented by AmeriCorps members and other college students, which is an additional support structure. Certified teachers managed the tutors, who participated in a program training prior to the intervention and on an ongoing basis. In addition, tutoring observations were conducted by the certified teacher. Each site had a parent partner who worked with participants' families and conducted home visits for all students twice during the summer between their first and second years of the program. The parent partners also provided a monthly newsletter, monthly family events at each site, and connected with parents via phone and email.
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).