WWC review of this study

Final report: 1994–1995 Success for All Program in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1995). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    205
     Students
    , grades
    2-4
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations

Reviewed: March 2017

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
54 students

53.67

47.82

No

 
 
20
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
54 students

23.58

19.66

No

 
 
15

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
77 students

27.11

24.83

No

 
 
8

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
77 students

63.56

62.03

No

 
 
4

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
74 students

27.16

26.78

No

 
 
1

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
74 students

60.73

60.28

No

 
 
1
Show Supplemental Findings

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
19 students

61.45

48.55

No

 
 
32

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohorts 1-3, four years and three years of intervention;
123 students

0.12

-0.29

No

 
 
18

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
19 students

25.09

20.25

No

 
 
17

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohorts 1-3, four years and three years of intervention;
123 students

0.08

-0.29

No

 
 
15

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/Cohorts 1-2;
81 students

0.01

0.09

No

-3
 
 

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/ Cohorts 1-2;
81 students

-0.07

0.04

No

-5
 
 
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
54 students

27.58

26.2

No

 
 
9
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
77 students

33.28

33

No

 
 
1

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
74 students

33.41

35.02

No

-9
 
 
Show Supplemental Findings

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
19 students

30.28

25.51

No

 
 
19

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohorts 1-3, four years and three years of intervention ;
123 students

0.04

-0.22

No

 
 
12

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/Cohorts 1-2;
81 students

-0.08

0.18

No

-9
 
 
Reading achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
54 students

14.64

12.6

No

 
 
13
More Outcomes

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
74 students

19.8

22.44

No

-14
 
 

Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-3)

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
77 students

83.8

90.54

No

-14
 
 
Show Supplemental Findings

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohort 1, four years and three years of intervention ;
123 students

-0.08

-0.23

No

 
 
7

Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-3)

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
19 students

75.86

78.9

No

-6
 
 

Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/Cohorts 1–2;
81 students

-0.11

0.36

No

-17
 
 

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

  • Race
    Black
    36%
    Not specified
    10%
    White
    54%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    8%
    Not Hispanic
    92%

  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Indiana

Setting

The study took place in four elementary schools located in the same district in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Study sample

This study included students who were enrolled at two SFA® schools and two comparison schools. Comparison schools were matched to the intervention schools based on poverty level, prior achievement level, and ethnicity; pairs of students were then matched on PPVT pretest scores. The study included three cohorts of students, and intervention students in each cohort received SFA® for up to 4 years. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on spring 1995 findings (after 3 or 4 years of exposure) from 205 students in the three analytic samples that were found to be equivalent at baseline: Cohort 1: 54 students in the SFA® group and 20 students in the comparison group—these students began using the reading program in the 1991–92 school year and were followed from kindergarten to third grade; Cohort 2: 45 students in the SFA® group and 32 students in the comparison group—these students began using the reading program in the 1991–92 school year and were followed from first to fourth grade; and Cohort 3: 29 students in the SFA® group and 25 students in the comparison group—these students began using the reading program in the 1992–93 school year and were followed from kindergarten to second grade. The analytic sample for Cohort 3 that the WWC used for the intervention’s effectiveness rating included only ethnic minority students (comprised largely of African-American students). Results for the full sample of Cohort 3 students are not included in this report because the intervention and comparison group students in that sample were not equivalent on key characteristics at baseline. The percentage of Caucasian students in the four study schools was between 40% and 68%. The percentage of African-Americans students ranged from 27% to 45%. The percentage of Hispanic students ranged from 8% to 9%.

Intervention Group

Intervention students received the typical SFA® program, including the SFA® reading curriculum, tutoring for students, quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers. Students were grouped into cross-grade reading groups based on reading level. These groups met for 90 minutes a day and used the Reading Roots and Reading Wings curricula. Students who were struggling to keep up with their reading group were provided with one-on-one tutoring, and students were regrouped on a regular basis. SFA® was coordinated at the school level by a full- or part-time program coordinator.

Comparison Group

Comparison schools continued using their regular curriculum. One school used a reading program based on basal readers, with a strong focus on phonics. The other placed some emphasis on phonics and whole-language instruction, and introduced individual tutoring and regrouping in the later years of the study.

Support for implementation

Teachers in their first year of teaching SFA® classes received 3 days of summer training and 2–4 additional in-service days during the school year. A school facilitator monitored and provided feedback throughout the year. Twice a year, trainers provided by the developer visited and observed teachers. After the first year, training was reinforced by regular in-service training, an annual SFA® conference, and implementation checks for the facilitators and trainers.

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.

  • Casey, J., Smith, L. J., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Final report: 1993–1994 Success for All program in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for All on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(1), 29-53.

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1999). Bridging the gap: The effects of the Success for All program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(2), 129–150.

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Johnson, B. (1993). Final Report: 1992–93 Success for All program in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

  • Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. (1994, April). Using “Success For All” to restructure elementary schools: A tale of four cities [Ft. Wayne, IN]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement [Ft. Wayne, IN]. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

newsflash icon contact icon facebook icon twitter icon
loading
back to top